Friday, 1 May 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That we urge you to oppose the Australian Bill of Rights Bill because: We get no legally enforceable rights under the Bill. The Bill does not guarantee vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property and not be deprived of it without just compensation and the right of choice between Government and non-Government schools. The Bill gives Canberra extra powers to change our Federal system by the back door without a constitutional referendum. The Bill gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission. Your petitioners ask that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should vote against the Bill of Rights, support Opposition amendments and seek a genuine public debate and a referendum on the Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the decision to curtail the landscaping at the New Parliament House is a false economy. The landscaping is an integral part of the building and environs which together will be one of the world's most exciting examples of architectural design this century. Incomplete it will be a monument to our lack of resolve as a nation. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: a. Reconsider the reinstatement of the landscaping according to the present plans b. Consider savings which may be made in other areas to ensure this may be achieved. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 543 citizens). 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 Australia Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business, and will not be effective in combatting 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 pray. by Senator Reid (from 61 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. There is no legal barrier to the importation of X-rated videos into the ACT or to their sale in the ACT. 2. The Government has ignored the repeated protests of the Senate and the people of Canberra on this situation. 3. As a result X-rated videos are being sold from Canberra to other States, although they are banned in all States. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate to put pressure on the Government to ban the importation and sale of X-rated video material. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 10 citizens) and Senator Ryan (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 78 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: If there is to be legal process against alleged war criminals resident in Australia, the foundations of justice should be clear and equitable. 1. Let the term, ``war crime'', be first clearly defined. 2. Let specific prosecutions be swiftly launched against those individuals alleged to have committed them, thus releasing the rest of their co-nationals from unwarranted slur and suspicion. 3. Let an Australian tribunal hear the charges. Nobody should be deported to face the ``tender mercies'' of any foreign government. 4. Let the presumption of innocence until proved guilty be clearly established. 5. Let all evidence obtained from the Soviet or any other communist government be set aside and totally disregarded. 6. Let all the costs of any person charged and found not guilty be paid by the Commonwealth Government so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. And your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray: by Senator Reid (from 13 citizens). To the President of the Senate of the Federal Parliament assembled: We, your undersigned petitioners humbly pray that there should be knowledge of, and concern for the flood of abortions, repeat abortions and abortifacient devices which are depriving unborn Australian children of life, and which are being funded, at least in part, by the taxpayer. by Senator West (from 12 citizens). Petitions received. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate welcomes the withdrawal of the appeal against the grant of the Central Zone Remote Commercial Television Services Licence to Imparja Television Pty Ltd, congratulates Imparja Television, and looks forward to the commencement of broadcasts in outback South Australia and the Northern Territory. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for five sitting days after today, for disallowance of the Northern Prawn Fishery (Special Provisions) Management Plan No. 12. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 4, standing in my name for five sitting days hence, for disallowance of the amendments of the schedule of the scheme under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COONEY —The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances was interested to establish that the retrospective application of this amendment did not prejudice the rights of any person. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) has explained to the Committee that the relevant petroleum products subsidy had been retrospectively increased and therefore there is no prejudice. The Committee raised this matter with the Minister because the amendment itself was not accompanied by an explanatory document from which the Committee could discover its impact and the effect of the retrospectivity. The Minister has given the Committee his assurance that in future amendments will be accompanied by a brief explanatory statement. In the long run this new practice will be of very considerable assistance to parliamentarians in general and the Committee in particular. The question of ensuring that complex and sometimes obscure delegated legislative instruments are accompanied by an adequate explanatory note was referred to in detail in a statement I made on 28 April 1987. In keeping with the Committee's usual practice of keeping the Senate informed of its scrutiny I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the Committee's exchange of correspondence with the Minister. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Cooney I refer to your request of 24 February 1987 on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances regarding the retrospectivity of the amendments of the Schedule to the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 dated 15 December 1986. The Committee is correct in assuming that the position as set out in my letter of 4 November 1986 still holds in that the retrospective amendments of 15 December 1986 were not in any way detrimental to claimants. As explained in previous correspondence, rates of subsidy are calculated from freight differentials which are determined by the Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA). On 8 December 1986 the PSA endorsed increased freight differentials for all Queensland aviation locations. The action of the Australian Customs Service was advantageous to claimants by ensuring that the benefit of the increased subsidy applied from that date. I would be pleased to assist the Committee in its consideration of these amendments to the Schedules for Subsidy Schemes by accepting your suggestion to, in future, sequentially number amendments. The Australian Customs Service will also provide the Committee with a brief explanatory statement about the amendments when they are next submitted. Yours sincerely JOHN N. BUTTON Senator Cooney Chairman The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Parliament of Australia The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances 24 February 1987 Senator the Hon. John Button Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 February 1987 the Committee considered an Amendment to the Schedules to the Subsidy Schemes in relation to the States under section 4 of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. The particular Amendment considered by the Committee is not numbered but it is dated 15 December 1986. The Committee has noted that the Amendment is made retrospective to 8 December 1986. It has considered the latest Amendment in association with your letter to the Committee of 4 November 1986 concerning a previous amendment also unnumbered, but dated 28 July 1986. The Committee seeks your comments on whether the position set out in your letter of 4 November 1986 is representative of the general position and adequately explains the retrospectivity in this latest Amendment. The Committee would also ask you to consider the possible advantages of ensuring that future Amendments are sequentially numbered for ease of reference and accompanied by a brief explanatory statement which could allay some of the concerns of a scrutiny committee. The Committee would very much welcome your views on these matters. Yours sincerely BARNEY COONEY Chairman Motion (by Senator Coates)-by leave-agreed to: That the time for presentation of reports of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on the following matters be extended to 14 May 1987- (a) Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1986; and (b) briefing note on interest rates, tabled in the Senate by the Minister for Education, (Senator Ryan), on 25 February 1987. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time, upon which Senator Chaney had moved by way of amendment: Leave out all words after `That', insert `this Bill be not further proceeded with until it has been examined by the Business Regulation Review Unit in accordance with the procedures announced by the Government on 9 January 1987 for the review of government proposals affecting business regulation, and until the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations prepares a Regulation Impact Statement on the proposals contained in the Bill.' Senator COOK(Western Australia)(9.06) —When the clock forced me to conclude my remarks last night I had almost completed dealing with the argument on market forces. Some spokespeople from the Opposition had argued that, by this legislation, we should not interfere with market forces. I have two concluding points that I wish to make about that argument, which is a specious argument to say the least. Specifically, this legislation deals with government statutory authorities. Many of those statutory authorities are natural monopolies and, therefore, do not compete in the market like the private sector. We applied equal opportunity legislation to the private sector last year and it is observing the circumstances and conditions that we seek to apply to the non-private sector in this legislation. It would seem to me to be inconsistent on this occasion for those who espouse the primacy of market forces to try to transplant an argument that they ought to have used in the debate on the previous legislation that we assented to last year in the non-private sector. So in terms of their own logic, I think they have defeated their position. I turn now to what I think is the empirical evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that legislation of this character is needed. The current picture of the participation of women in the labour market shows that women are encoded into low paid employment and they are not evenly distributed across the range of positions to which they aspire. A snapshot of the present position in the labour market would show that women work in a narrow range of industries. They do not work in, and do not have access to, all industries. It would show that women are concentrated in low paid jobs and tend to be concentrated at the bottom of the hierarchical scale in those industries in which they work; they are not distributed evenly in positions of power in the industrial hierarchy; and when they are well represented in industries or occupations they are concentrated at the lower end. In August 1986, the last date for which I have figures, 39 per cent of the entire work force were women. Of all women available to work, 47 per cent were working as compared with 75 per cent of men. Of full time workers, 30 per cent were women, but 62 per cent of women and 93 per cent of men were employed in the full time work force. In order to illustrate the distribution of female workers across the various occupational and industry classifications. I seek leave to incorporate two tables in Hansard Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1: Occupational classification of women. August 1986. Occupation Women as % of workforce Women as % of female workforce Managers & administrators... 23 6 Professionals... 39 12 Para-professionals... 43 7 Tradespersons... 10 4 Clerks... 74 33 Salespersons & personal service workers... 63 22 Plant & machine operators, & drivers... 17 3 Labourers & related workers... 33 13 Total... 39 100 (Source: ABS, The Labour Force, Australia, August 1986, Cat. No. 6302.0) Table 2: Representation of women in industries. August 1986. Industry Women as % of workforce Women as % of female workforce Agriculture... 28 5 Mining... 8 * Manufacturing... 27 11 Electricity, gas & water... 11 * Construction... 13 2 Wholesale & retail trade... 44 22 Transport & storage... 17 3 Communication... 28 2 Finance, property & business services... 48 13 Public administration & defence... 36 4 Community services... 64 29 Recreation, personal and other services... 56 9 Total... 39 100 (*indicates that the proportion of women in that industry was statistically insignificant) (Source: ABS, The Labour Force, Australia, August 1986, Cat. No. 6203.0) Senator COOK —I thank the Senate. Table 1, which is headed `Occupational classification of women. August 1986' has two percentage columns against a list of various occupations. The first percentage column shows the percentage of women in the occupations that are listed in the table. The second percentage column shows the percentage of women, out of the entire number of women working in the work force, in those occupations. Table 2 is a representation of the distribution of women in various industry sectors. The two percentage columns reflect the remarks I made about the two percentage columns in table 1. The tables show a distorted picture. I do not wish to dally on what that distortion is, but only to say that they prove, by statistical evidence, the point that I was making before about the uneven distribution and the segregation of women in the work force. The discrimination against women is not just a matter of their access to employment. If one takes the remuneration of women in the work force as a level, one will find that in May 1986 average weekly earnings for women-that is, average weekly earnings without overtime-worked out at $326.30 a week. The figure for men was $414.90 a week. That is a difference in favour of men of $88.60 or 21 per cent. On all of the average weekly earnings comparisons, women come out in a vastly inferior position. The worst example is when one takes an aggregation of all the statistics and finds the gross bottom line figure for the average weekly earnings for all employees. In May 1986 women averaged $245.80 a week while men averaged $403.90-a difference in average remunerations between employees on the grounds of sex of $158.10, or 39 per cent. Part of the explanation for that gross distortion is that women populate the part time work area more than men do. The table is skewed because women often work out of economic need as opposed to a pursuit of a particular career and assume household responsibilities as well. If one were to complete a comprehensive review of discrimination in the work force, one would have to include in that review an examination of equal pay decisions in Australia. It was not until 1972 that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought down a decision which recognised the principles of equal pay for work of equal value. When we cite that principle now it is indeed difficult to believe that prior to 1972 work was not remunerated on terms of equal value. There was discrimination in favour of men with lower wages paid to women for doing exactly the same range of work with the same range of responsibilities. In 1972 an equal pay case came before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government of the time, the McMahon Government, intervened in the so-called public interest to oppose the establishment of that principle. It was not until the Whitlam Government came to power in the famous first Whitlam Government-the duumvirate of Whitlam and Barnard-that government turned around that intervention and supported the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. When that decision came down the doomsayers forecast that women would be dismissed in droves because if an employer had a choice between a woman and a man he would always choose a man. The doomsayers also forecast that the economy would collapse because of the cost burdens imposed on industry by that decision. Neither event occurred. What did occur, however, was that the notion of women's work arose as a prime consideration. Last year, 1986, a further case was taken to establish comparable worth. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in its decision did not recognise the use of the term `comparable worth' as a principle but, nonetheless, referred the particular industry awards relevant to what had been called up to that point `women's work' to anomalies procedures under the Commission. Through that procedure, by way of sorting out anomalies in awards, the comparable worth criteria are increasingly being recognised. At last, after all these years, discrimination brought about by the market-place against women's employment and equal remuneration for women in employment is being put to rest. It is idle therefore, as some have argued, to say that there is no need for this legislation. If one looks at the statistics and tables I have tendered and follows the argument about discrimination in remuneration, it is clear that there is a need for some guidance to be given to the market-place to ensure equality of opportunity for women. In that sense it is doubly important that other categories-Aborigines, migrants and disabled people too-have a right to equal opportunities. Those categories by and large in the statistics are discriminated against even more so than those stark figures I have given illustrate in terms of women's employment. Indeed, if a woman is in double jeopardy-if one is a woman and a migrant, a woman and disabled or a woman and an Aboriginal-one's opportunities for equality in employment decrease down the scale in the respective order in which I have cited those particular categories. An Aboriginal woman looking for employment in Australia would have virtually no chance of finding work and virtually no access to employment in the areas of occupation or profession to which she may aspire. For a liberal democracy like Australia that is indeed a harsh criticism. It is a reason why this Government has in its labour market programs specifically targeted those areas for support programs to encourage work experience, training and skills development for workers in those categories so that they can be brought up to a reasonable level in which they can compete. This legislation helps fill out that objective. Some critics opposite have said that the legislation is an unfair burden on employment authorities. Although those remarks are probably more relevant to the private sector than to this sector, I believe that it is a matter that is worthy of argument. In 1977 I had the privilege of examining the labour practices in the construction of the Trans-Alaskan pipeline compared to labour practices in the Pilbara area of Western Australia. The study was of remote construction in isolated communities in harsh geographical environments. The reason why the Trans- Alaskan pipeline is important is that it started before the United States non-discrimination laws were in place and was completed after they had had their effect. There was a dramatic improvement in efficiency because of the application of the non-discrimination laws. When one compared the work performance on the construction of that pipeline to the work performance on the construction of resource development projects in Western Australia, there was a dramatic improvement in favour of the pipeline construction where non-discrimination applied rather than the market force selection of a young, white, Anglo-Saxon, male work force in the remote region of Western Australia building resource development projects. The conclusion of that study was that it is more efficient for industry to run a non-discriminatory regime and to give equal opportunity to all sectors of the community than it is to select what on the surface might appear to be the most efficient type of worker. It was found that when workers work in a normal, natural environment with a reasonable sex balance-a balance in terms of ethnicity that is typical of the communities from which they come-and when in all other respects life at work mirrors life in general society workers are more efficient. Therefore, this legislation has a significant import in bringing to the output of industry and to the public sector greater efficiency gains. As well as being basically right and humanitarian, it is more efficient in terms of industrial operation. That brings me to a conclusion in my remarks. I believe that those members of the Opposition who are opposing this legislation are betraying a basic right of people in this society-a liberal democratic society dedicated to democratic institutions and elections through Parliament-to have equal opportunity. Those who oppose this legislation are also betraying the responsibility of Senator Peter Baume who in August last year, representing his Party's view, called for this legislation. He has now been undermined and betrayed in a sleazy political compromise aimed at appeasing the National Party of Australia and those honourable members who are walking away from the principles which were then being espoused by the Opposition. Finally, those who oppose this legislation betray a fundamental principle which should arch across all parties in the liberal democratic process. That fundamental principle is that, if you treat unequal groups equally, you perpetrate discrimination. I believe that one thing that binds together most parties which support parliamentary democracy, and arches across philosophical differences, is a commitment to a principle such as that. Those who oppose it walk outside of that commitment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(9.21) —I am very happy to rise in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 which, when added to the earlier affirmative action Bills, will go some considerable way to ensuring that women and other designated groups have real equal opportunity in employment. They will be given that by this series of legislation. As with those earlier pieces of legislation, the programs to be developed under this Bill will not lead to positive discrimination. Quite properly, this Bill, as did the others, deals with employment matters on the basis of merit. Given the quite extraordinary behaviour of the dries in the Liberal Party of Australia and of the National Party of Australia, it is worth looking in some detail at the Bill to demonstrate how empty are their claims about the Bill's imposing quotas. The Bill sets minimum requirements for programs and they are much the same as those that apply to affirmative action. Authorities are to inform employees of the contents of the program and of the results of any monitoring and evaluation of it. Authorities have to tell the employees that the program is there, what that program contains and what the results are of establishing the program. Part II of the legislation also requires authorities to give responsibility to a person with sufficient authority and status to be able to develop and implement the program properly. That clause is there to prevent an authority from giving authority for the equal employment opportunity program to somebody too junior to effect any changes. It requires authorities to consult with trade unions that have members employed in the authority and who will be affected by the programs. The trade unions do a great deal of educative work with their members. Authorities are required to consult with employees, particularly women or persons in the designated groups. The designated groups include migrants of non-English speaking background, Aborigines and disabled people. Authorities have to collect and record employment statistics and related information relevant to the operations of the program. We need a few facts, too. Authorities, under their programs, are required to review policies and practices to identify those which discriminate against women and persons in the other designated groups and to identify any patterns of lack of equality of opportunity for those people. A review of those policies and practices must include not only written policies or practices about which there are instructions but also those sorts of attitudes that come out in conversations and discussions-those sorts of unwritten understandings that exist in networks between senior and junior employees, and the sorts of taken for granted understandings that have always been such a barrier to the selection and promotion of women and which quite often left us fighting in the dark against things that we were told did not exist but which we knew very well did exist because of our experience of them. A review of those policies and practices certainly has to contain some genuine review of those discriminatory unwritten understandings. As this outline shows, a reading of the legislation demonstrates the emptiness of the claims of the dries and the Nationals. The women covered by this legislation, the migrants of non-English speaking background, the disabled and Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, will not be fooled by this nonsense about quotas and they will not forget those who used such pathetic excuses. In this debate it has been a pleasure for me, as it has for other senators who have already spoken, to hear that not everybody on the Opposition side has been prepared to fall for and accept this quite hollow claim about quotas. It is a matter of regret to me that thus far it appears that on this occasion those people from the Liberal Party side who will be prepared to stand up for the fine principle of equality of opportunity which has been outlined by Liberals in this debate-and for which, until now, the Liberal Party has stood-and to do the most significant thing that anyone elected to this Parliament can do, which is to vote according to that principle, will all be men. I devoutly hope that by the time this debate has ended, some Liberal Party women will follow the lead of those men of principle in their Party who appear to understand this legislation and to be prepared to stand by a very fine set of principles, of which this legislation is a reflection. Notwithstanding the value of this legislation, equal opportunity will never be attained merely by the removal of legislative barriers or the enactment of legislation such as this. These measures cannot and should not be seen in isolation. We can look at all sorts of aspects of society to see that the attitudes towards women have a very deep-seated effect which is not just an individual effect on women who feel discriminated against, who are discriminated against and who, therefore, suffer socially, economically, psychologically and even unfortunately in all too many cases, physically. Society as a whole is the loser in a situation in which we do not treat all individuals equally. It is worth reminding the Senate that when we are talking about women as a group in society being discriminated against, we are not talking about a minority group; we are talking about a group which is still discriminated against, as it has been throughout our history, but it is not a minority group as are most other groups which suffer discrimination. Women represent about half of society at any given time, and at the moment Australian statistics show that women are in a slight majority. It is an indictment on our society that one half of it has been able to continue to build a society in which this sort of discrimination continues. Certainly we are improving, and this Bill, preceding legislation and other actions outside the Parliament in other social institutions are moving us in better directions. However, we must recognise that we have a long way to go. I simply say, as I said when I first spoke as a member of this chamber, that it is a matter of great concern to me, as a woman who has achieved a position of some considerable status in society, who has been a beneficiary of education and has not suffered a great deal of discrimination in her personal or professional life, that many other women who achieve positions of status and influence, decision-making positions, positions which are well paid perhaps, often forget the very facts I have mentioned-that not all women share the benefits which we have had. All too often we see women, who have achieved positions in our society which can be seen to be equal to those of men, forgetting that this is not happening for the vast majority of other women. Once again, I exhort my female colleagues in this chamber to remember that fact. While we may be among the privileged in our society, a great many of our sisters are not. In not supporting legislation such as this, we are dealing them a very severe blow and not living up to the responsibility that we, as women who have been able to rise to do what a great many other women have not been able to do, now have. Society as a whole is the loser when 50 per cent of our community is not able to achieve its maximum potential. I wish to give some specific examples of the way in which I believe that to be so. Earlier this week, I attended a meeting in Canberra of the Australian Early Childhood Association, which was addressed by its national President. It was considering an excellent report on the quality of long-day child care in Australia. That report was produced for the Minister for Community Services and completed in December last year. The issue of child care is, perhaps, at the very heart of some of the problems faced by women in achieving-especially in the work force, although not only there. One of the chief problems of those concerned with child care issues is that the quality of child care is not sufficiently recognised as being a major concern. All too often, those who require child care facilities-mostly women-are under great pressure, and usually economic pressure. We must not forget that the majority of women who enter the paid work force do so for economic reasons, not for any kind of personal self-fulfilment or esoteric reason. They work simply to keep the family budget balanced, or even, in too many cases, simply to survive. Therefore, when they are looking for child care their main concern is finding somewhere to place their children. Very often they do not have the luxury of choice. That is for two reasons-first, because there may not be a choice, as we are desperately short of child care places of any kind; and, secondly, because of the pressures of time and the lack of resources to investigate any choices that may exist. There is also a lack of information about what sort of child care constitutes quality child care and what kind of child care might be available. That is a matter of great concern for professionals in the child care area. They understand that decision makers in our community are also bereft of a genuine understanding of the need for quality child care. That leads to a particular problem in our society. Whether the child care takes place in an institution or in the home, through parenting-usually female, but sometimes male-it must be of the highest quality. Our society does not sufficiently recognise that fact and very often-as we note in the deliberations concerning the up-coming May mini-Budget, and as has happened so often in recent years-one of the first dispensable items in any government Budget seems to be an area such as child care. Yet, making economic decisions on that sort of basis is to the detriment of society. I draw the attention of the Senate to an article in the Times on Sunday of 26 March, which discussed United States of America research into the education of pre-school aged children. It demonstrated quite clearly that those who had had in their early years a good quality background were actually much more successful members of society. I suggest that, because we do not understand that a traditional women's area is tremendously significant, we are actually the losers. The article, which was written by Steven Juan, concludes by saying: Society's investment dividend takes many forms. For example, as a result of better school achievement, less high cost remedial instruction is required. Employment opportunities are increased through higher-order skill acquisition. Fewer unemployed means lower unemployment payouts. Fewer juvenile delinquents means less need for costly juvenile detention facilities and, for their `graduates', fewer prisons. Governments may be able to choose between building preschools now or building prisons later. It is that kind of long term forward thinking that we should have when we are looking at traditional female areas; for instance, the child care area. It is not insignificant that workers in that area, and workers in education, health and other traditionally female areas, are also workers with lower status and lower paid jobs. It is a vicious circle. Until one gets more pay, one does not get more status in this society, and that is a vicious circle for women workers across a whole range of areas. In the education area, for instance-again, another traditional women's area-there is a very lopsided situation in that girls do go on to tertiary and further education and achieve considerable success, but when it comes to decision making in that whole sector, the situation is quite abysmal. For instance, in March this year the New South Wales Minister for Education revealed that 57 per cent of the State's teachers were women but that only 8 per cent of high school principals and only 5 per cent of primary school principals were women. In the university sector the situation is worse. At least in Australia we do have one full time female vice-chancellor, Professor Di Yerbury at Macquarie University, whereas in the United Kingdom, for instance, there is not even one. However, there has never been a female Director-General of Education in Australia and there has been only one woman chief executive of an education ministry, the present incumbent of the Commonwealth post, Ms Helen Williams. It is that sort of failure of our society to create a situation in which women do percolate into the decision making positions which causes that vicious circle of low status and low pay. In the health area, again there is a lopsided set of figures. More than three-quarters of Australia's health manpower is actually womanpower. Census figures which I have before me today demonstrate quite clearly that the ratio of women to men in health occupations is inversely proportional to the level of remuneration received. It is in the lower levels of health care giving that we see the women and, of course, in the higher levels, in the areas of medical practice, that we see the highest proportion of men. On the basis of my claim that society as a whole is a loser, that imbalance is demonstrated quite often in attitudes to women's health-attitudes which then cause perhaps inappropriate responses to problems demonstrated by women-and again, that vicious circle comes into play. There has been in the debate thus far some reference to women in the industrial scene. It is interesting to note that while in the union movement membership of women has been increasing-figures show that from 1968 to 1982 the proportion of female employees who were members of a trade union increased from 25 per cent to 48 per cent; women are increasingly becoming unionised-between 1983 and 1986 the proportion fluctuated and was down to 44 per cent in June 1986, whereas the male participation rate remained constant at 60 to 63 per cent. So while women are increasingly being unionised, and presumably taking advantage of the ability to use that extra organisation to improve their status and pay positions, it is still true that within the union movement, as we have seen in the education area, the health area and a number of other areas, women are not rising proportionately to decision making positions. Jennie George of the New South Wales Teachers Federation is the only female industry representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive. The six Trades and Labour Council representatives and the seven ACTU officers are, of course, all male. Efforts are being made and those efforts, in whatever field, need to be acknowledged. But it is important in a debate such as this that we recognise that those efforts have not achieved equality and that we will continue to need legislation such as this and complementary legislation as well as a change in attitudes. Whilst 40 per cent of our work force comprises women, on average women receive only about 60 per cent of male pay rates. In a more general sense it is of great concern to the Australian Democrats that the current economic thinking in Australia is working to the detriment of women and their children. As it was when the Titanic was going down, so it is with razor gangs-women and children first. Whilst if I were on the Titanic I would be reasonably happy about that, it is quite undesirable in the economic scene in Australia in 1987. It is a measure of the low status in which women are held that the programs and services upon which women are so dependent are seen as most dispensable. Perhaps that is not surprising as in the decision-making forum of this Parliament women number only one out of 10. In Cabinet deliberations the proportion is even lower. In shadow Cabinet deliberations it could scarcely be lower. This is a major problem on which we all need to work. It has been noted in this debate-in particular, I recall Senator Reynolds saying it last night-that the actions of the Liberal Party in walking away from this critical situation and from this legislation, in denying the principles that that Party has stood for, no doubt have lost it considerable support amongst the women of Australia who recognise the problems and who suffer the imbalances or who, if they do not suffer them, work towards a better situation for their sisters. Senator Reynolds should not sit in great comfort on her side of the House in that knowledge because, as I have said, the economic decisions which are being made at the moment by her own Australian Labor Party Government are of no great comfort to a vast number of women. Let us consider some of the decisions made in the Budget session last year-for instance, the decision to delay the poverty traps legislation which was so crucial to people living below the poverty line, whose numbers are increasing. The legislation was crucial, in particular, to single parent families, most of which are headed by women-women supporting or attempting to support their children. That measure and other measures in the Budget have meant many more months, including a very dismal Christmas period for many, of tremendous economic deprivation. These women are not happy with Senator Reynolds's side of the House. We have just had, this week, the report of the committee which was looking at Senator Ryan's tertiary education fees. As the Australian Democrats predicted, we discovered that amongst the most significantly affected groups were women. In this case, interestingly enough, since the introduction of the $250 fee women who, I think, the Opposition considers to be the average kind of women, women who are at home and who are dependent upon their spouses for financial backing, are not finding their way into further education. So the situation which applies to women on low incomes applies as well to women with families. The review committee found that they were the groups which were most affected by yet another of last year's Budget decisions-the introduction of the $250 tertiary fee, which, of course, was supported by all parties in the chamber with the exception of the Australian Democrats. Senator Reynolds and the other Government members cannot take too much comfort from the fact that the Liberal Party is losing votes over its attitude to this legislation. What is happening, and what we will see happening more and more if these kinds of attitudes prevail, is that women and children are first when it comes to cuts and stringency. The women of Australia will be the first significant group to demonstrate the benefits of the preferential voting system. They will not have to say: `Well, I have voted Liberal all my life and now that the Party has sacked Peter Baume I will have to do something I have never done before and vote for those other people who imposed the tertiary fee with the result that I cannot now get into further education'. That is why they will look to the Australian Democrats who have seen the disadvantages to large groups of women in so many of the decisions which have been made. It is fortunate that this Government has brought forward this legislation as it said it would. The Australian Democrats certainly applaud that and support this legislation wholly and solely. We have a long way to go in the community. Some significant decision makers in the community still, it appears, harbour a thinly disguised resentment of women succeeding in the work force and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the actions of the Opposition on this Bill seem to point that out. It is regrettable, as Senator Haines and I have said, that members of the Liberal Party and the National parties en masse have now chosen to abandon the usual bipartisan approach that we have seen in this country on the question of women's equality. New heart will probably be given to the misogynists in our society whose unacceptable views will be given the appearance of legitimacy by the approach of the dries and the Nationals in this debate. It is particularly galling that some of their number are women. I wonder whether even at this late stage those women might at least reconsider their position and join Senator Baume and others in their principled position. I conclude by reiterating my and my Party's support for this legislation. I only wish that we had seen it introduced sooner. The women of Australia and other groups covered by the Bill will benefit from its enactment. It deserves the unanimous support of this chamber. It is vital that the ability to perform a job is not obscured by the prejudice of an employer. There is no doubt that it has been so in the past in relation to the groups covered by this Bill. That situation has to change for the health of the whole of Australian society. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(9.48) —The Senate is debating the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. I am a Liberal senator for South Australia. As a Liberal, I firmly believe in equality of opportunity for all Australians. That includes my actively pursuing sound measures for better achieving equal employment opportunities. As a senator, I firmly believe that this chamber of the Parliament is a House of review where we take into account all the prior discussion in the community, in the Party and in the House of Representatives. As a South Australian, I firmly believe that I should represent all the people of my State and act here in a way that is honestly and genuinely accountable to them. It is with these three principles in my mind that I support this Bill. In my view, the Bill does conform to Liberal principles of equality of opportunity and clearly embraces the particular relevant parts of the Liberal Federal platform. This legislation seeks equality for Australian women, migrant Australians, Aboriginal Australians and Australians with disabilities. This legislation seeks equality for these designated groups on the clear basis of merit. I have made these introductory statements of my own position because this assessment is shared by some of my colleagues, but not all. I regret that my parliamentary Party has resolved not to support this legislation. Senator Chaney —In the absence of amendments. Senator TEAGUE —Yes, in the absence of amendments. I am genuinely unconvinced by the arguments that have been expressed by Mr Neil Brown, our Party's earlier spokesman on this matter, and by Senator Chaney, who is our spokesman now. I respect the views of my colleagues but I do not agree with their conclusion. I am genuinely convinced, both intellectually and politically, that the argument lies with the support of this measure. This is not a law about quotas but about merit. It is not a radical or even innovative measure. Rather, it is consistent with the two earlier equal opportunity Bills that my Party and I have firmly supported and the Parliament has enacted. This is not a trespass on the rights of any individual Australian; rather, it is a further step towards facilitating the rights of all. This legislation is what I and my Liberal colleagues clearly called for in this Parliament last year. We all called for it. Three years ago we all supported the Public Service Reform Bill 1984, which established equal employment opportunity in the Commonwealth Public Service, with provisions similar to those in the Bill before us now. One year ago we all supported the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, which established equal employment opportunity in higher education institutions and in private enterprise, again with provisions similar to those in the Bill now before us. In the course of last year's debate I and my Liberal colleagues moved numerous amendments-there were more than 20 of real substance-in our attempt to improve that legislation. For example, we pointed out the error of the title of the 1986 Bill, the reference to affirmative action. We reject the original meaning of this term, we reject the concept in the popular usage, because I and all Liberals I have ever met oppose quotas in employment. However, we were unsuccessful in our attempt to remove the words `affirmative action' in favour of our genuine support for the preferred and more accurate term `equal employment opportunity'. I note, as a tribute to the argument that was put then, that the Bill which is before us now is called an equal employment opportunity Bill. But despite our failure to get that change in the title last year and despite many of our amendments not being supported by Government or Australian Democrat senators, we all, at the end of the day, supported both the second and third readings of the Bill. We all supported the 1986 equal employment opportunity Bill, despite the failure of some of our amendments, because we preferred the unamended Bill to having no Bill at all. There was an intellectual and political judgment to be made. In the balance of arguments we supported the 1986 Bill. I must add that this Liberal support gave great heart to many people, men and women, in all parts of Australia, because this measure was seen by them as an active and positive step towards a more just Australia, a fairer Australia, and a step towards achieving a more genuine equality of opportunity here. That was and is also my own view. The point I wish to make is that during the 1986 debate we as Liberals-my colleague Senator Peter Baume was our spokesman then-took the initiative to call for not just the 1984 legislation, not just the 1986 legislation, but a third measure; that is, the extension of equal employment opportunity to Commonwealth statutory authorities. We meant statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation-these major semi-government business enterprises. We thought that they should respond to the same employment requirements as the Commonwealth Public Service, the universities and colleges and the major free enterprise companies. The 1987 Bill that is now before us is in fact the measure that we called for last year. As Liberals we called for an extension of equal employment opportunity legislation to statutory authorities, and this is the Bill that we have. It is my honest assessment that there is no substantial difference between what we called for and what we have. When I examine this 1987 legislation I see that there are three amendments which I think will improve the provisions of the Bill. The first of these amendments would exclude contractors from the definition of `employee' but I must point out that the 1986 legislation, as adopted, includes the reference to contractors. The second amendment would better express and clarify the references to objectives and forward estimates in an equal employment program. The third amendment would alter the reporting requirements for the statutory authorities so that they are parallel to the reporting requirement set out in the 1986 legislation. These are the three amendments which the Liberal Party is initiating to improve the Bill. They are the only amendments we are proposing to the text of this Bill. They have been circulated in the Senate and will be dealt with in the Committee stage. I should add that at the conclusion of the second reading debate we have one more amendment-a procedural amendment-which refers the Bill to the Business Regulation Review Unit for fuller examination of its financial impact. The three textual amendments and the one procedural amendment together make up the totality of my Party's suggestions for improving this legislation. These four amendments are all worthy and I will support them, but in my view not one of them is crucial. They would all be improvements but not one of these changes would significantly alter the legislation. Those of my colleagues who disagree with this Bill say that if these four amendments were accepted by the Government they would vote in support of the legislation. On 25 March in the House of Representatives debate on this Bill the leading speaker for the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), said: It must be emphasised that, subject to the Government also agreeing to a number of significant amendments that I will foreshadow and refer to shortly- He went on to refer to the three Committee stage amendments that we have before us in the Senate concerning contractors, forward estimates and reporting and to another concerning designated groups- we will support this Bill if the Government undertakes not to proceed with it until it is subjected to the business review process . . . If it passes muster then . . . we will support this Bill. That is clear enough. My colleagues are telling the Government that if it accepts these few amendments all Liberal Party members will support the Bill. I respect the views of my colleagues but when I consider in turn each of the amendments which stand in the way of support for the Bill, it does not surprise me that some people have written to me claiming that placing emphasis on the amendments is `nitpicking, splitting hairs and pedantic'. Many people see these small issues as an inadequate basis on which to claim that there is a significant difference between the present and previous equal employment opportunity legislation. Let us look at these amendments one by one, remembering that these are the only matters which stand in the way of full acceptance of the Bill. I stress that they are all that stand in the way of full acceptance by every senator, as I understand the situation. First, let us look at the matter concerning the Business Regulation Review Unit. Earlier this week the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) stated clearly at Question Time that the Business Regulation Review Unit has had the opportunity to review the financial impact of this Bill. It appears that the Unit thinks that there will not be a major financial impact. I ask the Government to table the findings of the Unit because that would satisfy the amendment which the Liberals are moving and I am supporting at the conclusion of the second reading debate. Secondly, there is the question of contractors. We proposed this exact amendment to the 1986 Bill but we were unsuccessful then. We will do it again this time and I hope we are successful. Nevertheless, it was no barrier to our supporting the Bill last year. I see no sound reason for not doing the same again. The third matter regards the definition of forward estimates. I support again this amendment to improve the proposal. We propose to clarify the Bill's reference to quantitative targets in employment levels as being just that-targets, not quotas and not even possibly interpretable as quotas. Our amendment clarifies the Bill's own intention, according to everyone who has spoken in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The Bill's intention is that there be targets and not quotas, and we are seeking to amend the words to clarify the expression to ensure that they are to our keener satisfaction interpreted according to the intention of the Bill. Mr N. A. Brown in the House of Representatives referred to this aspect not as quotas but as possibly opening the door to quotas. I respect that view and that is why we seek to clarify. I do not have that view myself. His actual words were: . . . a very definite step towards the imposition of compulsory quotas. But he was quick to add in his dissection of these fine points about words: All of these matters are matters for judgment but, taking the present Bill as a whole and making a rational assessment of the thrust of it and what it is clearly seeking to achieve, it is beyond doubt that the substance of the proposal is that the equal employment opportunity programs provided for in the Bill have taken a very definite step towards specific and quantitative programs which are in effect the equivalent of quotas. I am one who is unconvinced by my colleague's analysis. I remind the Senate again of this weak conclusion. I call it `weak' because it is qualification upon qualification. I am good humoured about my own speeches and the speeches of my colleagues. Frankly, I am reminded of some episodes of Alice in Wonderland-a cloud of language, and I am not convinced. Are we truly expecting the public to embrace all this with any conviction? I do not and I cannot. The fourth amendment refers to uniformity of reporting procedures. This would be a gain, but it is an accountant's gain and a clerk's gain, and it is so minor, I put to the Senate-- Senator Chaney —Reporting to the Parliament? Senator TEAGUE —No. Of course reporting to the Parliament is essential and the Bill provides for reporting to Parliament. But this fourth matter is to change the reporting requirements slightly so that they are more parallel with the 1986 reporting requirements. I call that conformity of reporting procedure a minor matter. I ask whether anyone-even Senator Chaney-would say that, if all the other amendments were agreed to, this would be the barrier to stop any senator from crossing the brink and supporting the Bill. I do not believe that it is a major matter. There was a reference by some to the definition of `designated group'. As I understand it, the Acts Interpretation Act already restricts the apparent open-endedness of two lines that refer, in an open-ended way, to possibly additional designated groups. I accept the present intention with regard to designated groups such as women, Aboriginals, certain migrants, and the disabled in the definitions that are given in the Bill. Having looked at all of those issues, it is my conclusion that none of them stand in the way of any senator supporting this Bill. I prefer the advantages of the Bill, even if it were unamended, to having no Bill at all. I think that my Senate colleague and leader, Senator Chaney, who has been listening to my speech-I thank him for that-was accurate when in his speech on the Bill yesterday he referred to `subtle changes' between the 1986 law, which we supported, and the 1987 Bill which is before us now. These subtle changes have not led Senator Chaney to assert that the present Bill squarely introduces quotas; it does not. Clause 3 (4) of the 1987 Bill clearly states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. The Bill does not provide for quotas; it reinforces employment on the basis of merit. I believe the conclusion is unassailable: There is no substantial difference between the 1987 measure and the 1986 Bill which we supported. I believe that the conclusion is unassailable; even now, the three or four reservations which my colleagues have said prevent them embracing the Bill cannot be shown to be substantial. In my view, they are not crucial or significant. This is the first occasion on which I will cross the floor after almost nine years in the Senate and in the good and welcome Parliamentary Liberal Party. I am in such conscientious disagreement with some of my colleagues that I will vote against them. I respect their views and I have been assured by all of those with whom I have spoken that they respect mine. The reason is that the issue in this Bill is justice, fairness and equality of opportunity for individual Australians. This legislation is only a small step. I do not put forward that this measure will revolutionise Australia. Senators Powell and Chaney and others who have contributed to the debate can rightly encourage us to see all manner of other injustices-injustices that, even now, are not being responsibly remedied by the present Government; injustices that relate to poverty, and injustices that are of enormous substance. However, the measure that is before us is the one we must consider. I see it as a small step, but it is in the most significant direction. Senator Puplick —All progress is in small steps. Senator TEAGUE —I accept Senator Puplick's statement that all progress is in small steps. This legislation is only a small step, but it is a step in the direction of justice, fairness and equality. The arguments that I have heard in opposition to the Bill I view as hollow. I am heart and mind opposed to them because they are fundamentally unconvincing. That I should support the Bill on its merits appears to me to be unassailable. It would be intellectual and political dishonesty for me to do otherwise. As I stand here I can honestly say that I have not felt so moved by any legislation until now, including that minority of occasions when I have expressed a view that is significant and that is not the same as that of my colleagues. I have always been relaxed in my voting in this chamber, and I continue to be in this debate. However, this is not just another Bill. It is not, for example, a Budget Bill about appropriation or expenditure. It is not like many items of legislation that we debate. This Bill involves a principle which I feel very deeply about-equality of opportunity. I honestly want to put my feet where my heart and mind are. My position on the Bill has been reinforced by the overwhelming views expressed by my own Liberal Party in South Australia. All of the views I have received have been in support of the Bill. The Chairman of the Federal Women's Committee, Trish Worth, who has been a personal friend of my wife's and myself for more than a dozen years, has written to me in these terms: It is my most sincere hope that the Liberal Party will be able to revert to a position of consistency with our Party Platform by the time this Bill is debated in the Senate. I quote the following from our Platform under the heading `Women': Women to have equality of opportunity and freedom of choice to engage in political, civil and community activities, employment and education. Removal of remaining areas of discrimination against women. Jobs should be open to all those capable of meeting the employers' specific requirements without regard to sex, age, race, disability, politics or religious beliefs. The Women's Council of the Liberal Party in South Australia has overwhelmingly carried a resolution in support of this Bill. I should add that the Women's Council in my State is very strong and very active. It includes women of all ages, of all professions and from all walks of life. It is usually regarded as having very conservative elements, but the resolution in support of this Bill that it considered was carried overwhelmingly. The Council's Policy Co-ordinator, Dawn Crosby, has sent to me the terms of that resolution. It states: With reference to the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill, Women's Council views with disappointment and disillusion, the Federal Parliamentary Party's decision to reverse its earlier commitment to equal opportunity legislation. The State Council of my Party has also considered this Bill and has determined a view in similar terms. One of the speakers in that State Council consideration, at a meeting in Port Pirie in the mid-north of my State-her name is Mary Cannon and she is an active State Council member-stated: I have carefully read Hansard and the Bills. We supported the 1984 Bill and the 1986 Bill and I reject the specious reasons which have been given for opposing this Bill, that imposes quotas. They split hairs over words, were pedantic over semantics. I oppose quotas because they would do more harm to women than good. I have received from Lenore Triplow, the Secretary of the Liberal Women's Network of South Australia, a resolution of the annual general meeting of the network, passed on 14 April, which also expresses strong support for this Bill in similar terms. I have tried as carefully as I can to outline my analysis of the crucial aspects of this legislation. In conclusion, for the reasons that I have given, I will support the Bill. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(10.14) —The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill is an historic Bill; that is why I would like to take a short time to speak to it. If merit is the fairest test of whether people should receive an appointment, this Bill is one that ought to be supported. Mind you, I think there is an argument made out by George Bernard Shaw and reflected in Pygmalion and My Fair Lady which says that merit should not be the test. I always felt somewhat sorry for Alfred Doolittle when he said, properly: `What about the unmeritorious? Why shouldn't they get a go?' Really they are the ones who have to put up with a lot. They miss out on appointments and miss out on the football team-I used to do that-simply because they are unmeritorious. Therefore, those who oppose the Bill have, to a certain extent, my sympathy because what they are doing is upholding those great rights-I think we all ought to have rights-of the unmeritorious. Therefore, we have to listen to those who speak against the Bill. We should understand that they, indeed, are also defending rights that can be made out, as I say, for those who really do not deserve appointments and who proceed on grounds that are unmeritorious. I think it is only proper that we acknowledge the position that they take. Unfortunately, having listened to the debate on the other side and the contribution just made by Senator Teague, I have swung away from the case of the unmeritorious; perhaps I will swing back to them by the end of the debate. However, at this stage I am for the meritorious. In those circumstances, I must support the Bill. Clause 3 is the interpretation clause; sub-clause (4) provides that merit is to be the single test. In those circumstances if women, in this case, are denied proper advancement or denied a job simply because they are women, in favour of the unmeritorious, this legislation says that that proposition should fall to the other proposition that merit should be the test. I have said that this is a historic Bill and perhaps the significant thing is not so much that it gives women equal opportunity but that it is a step down the long road, which will never end, unfortunately, to a state where there is fairness and justice for everyone throughout the world. Senator Puplick —I thought you were going to fix that overnight. Senator COONEY —I was thinking about doing it overnight, Senator Puplick, but I decided that it could not be done by the end of this session. I am afraid that I cannot take up my well-earned holidays just to bring justice and fairness to the community, particularly when there is a dispute as to whether the meritorious or unmeritorious should be the first consideration. If we think about the struggles throughout history, we can all remember Spartacus, who for some reason or other objected to slavery, as did Abraham Lincoln. People criticised them. This is an attempt to, as I say, bring about a state which I in my position here believe is a good state-where the lion lies down with the lamb, where we are all equal and not only treated as equals but also see each other as equals. I think that that is a happy state. I think that this legislation, as Senator Teague said, is a small but important step along that line. However, on the other hand, as I say, the argument has been put for the continuation of a society with a structure that allows prejudice to be used against certain groups-whether these groups be ethnic groups or are defined in terms of their sex or age. Personally, I am becoming more and more concerned about the latter-prejudice against the aged. Perhaps we should introduce a Bill about that, particularly before I leave this place. Senator Puplick —Under a compulsory retirement rule. Senator COONEY —I do not know whether it should be compulsory; that is all right for judges, but not for politicians. In any event, I think that this Bill is in that general category of legislation aimed at bringing about equality, fairness, and graciousness, if you like-all those qualities which we like to look upon as being truly human and which had their origins in all sorts of great philosophies, whether Christian or Jewish, or what have you, in the past. I have already mentioned Senator Teague but I think I should also mention Senator Peter Baume. It is always a bit of a problem as to whether one should mention honourable senators opposite in this regard because often it is counter-productive in one's particular party if one is praised by a member of another party. Senator Puplick —But you are all right. Senator COONEY —Having been assured by Senator Puplick that I am all right, I will congratulate Senator Peter Baume, Senator Teague and the others who have spoken in this debate because I think that this is an issue that goes not simply to the question of fairness to women in the workplace but generally I think to those great liberal principles which see the human race as very worth while with, in spite of its terrible failings and the times it nods, nevertheless deep down a capacity to live life in the way it should be lived. There is always a dark side and a light side of the Force, as is well illustrated by the movies that children bring home such as Return of the Jedi and so on. The theme is reflected in stories such as the Knights of the Round Table and others. This legislation is very much in that tradition. At the end of the debate the Bill will certainly be carried. Those honourable senators who speak against it will put the case as advocates-rather than put forward something that they truly believe in. In the movement towards a more benign state I find it difficult to see how this Bill could be rejected because of deeply held convictions and emotions. The convictions and the emotions should lead to support of the Bill, as has been illustrated by Senator Peter Baume, Senator Teague and others. Senator HILL(South Australia)(10.21) —I support legislation of this type because it accords with a major Liberal principle that it is the responsibility of government to act towards the objective of ensuring equality of opportunity within the whole community. Pursuant to that principle and objective my Party supported in 1984 a Bill for equal opportunity within the Public Service, the Public Service Reform Bill, and similarly supported the provisions of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986, which were to provide for equal opportunity programs within institutions of higher learning and private sector institutions employing more than 100 employees. I see this Bill dealing with statutory authorities as a further step towards the completion of the package of legislation that is necessary to cover different types of employers. In this speech I want to deal in a little more detail with the consistency that I see in this Bill with those that have been previously passed and with the general principles upon which our support of such legislation in the past was based. There have been three Bills in the last few years requiring employers to design programs to better ensure equal opportunity for women within employment. Because of the limitations of time I will concentrate in my presentation today on equality for women rather than other groups referred to in this Bill which are equally important and deserving of my time. The first of the three Bills I mentioned contained amendments to the Public Service Act which were passed in this place in 1984. They relate to the obligation of the Commonwealth Government as an employer. The employment programs set out were to ensure that appropriate action was taken to eliminate unjustified discrimination against women and persons in designated groups in relation to employment matters in departments and to take measures to enable women and persons in designated groups to compete for promotion and transfer and pursue careers within departments and within the Public Service generally as effectively as other persons. That is a laudable objective and to be applauded by all in this place. Steps were to be taken towards achievement of this objective by the development of programs and by the collection of data. Programs were to be developed to enable women to be better informed of the opportunities open to them-perhaps to better avail themselves of educational opportunities. Of course, necessarily, provisions were to be included within a program to assess the effectiveness of it; by comparing information collected in relation to the results of the program with the indicators against which the effectiveness of the program was to be assessed. The program was to include the quantitative or other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program was to be assessed. That provision was included for obvious reasons. It is only half the battle to implement a program; the next step is to see whether it is working. That can be done really only in quantitative terms. If the sectors of the community covered by the Act are to be given equal opportunity in a way that works, we would expect that to be seen in positive results. In this instance, in the case of women, we would expect to see more women over a period achieving higher status in the Public Service than in the past. Under that provision the Board may make recommendations to the relevant Secretary of a department. The Public Service Board may issue guidelines to the Secretary. Consistent with the three Bills of this package, the measure could only be described as soft legislation. It contained provisions for the giving of guidelines and general recommendations but did not give power to any authority to demand achievement of numbers within a specified period. It certainly was a mild piece of legislation but its objective was clear. The second Bill in the series was the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. As I have said it was to apply to higher education institutions and to private employers with more than 100 employees. That Bill required the development of programs designed to ensure that appropriate action was taken to eliminate employment discrimination against women by relevant employers, and the relevant employers were required to promote equal employment opportunity for women. This legislation, firstly, requires the elimination of existing discrimination and, secondly, investigation of measures to ensure equal opportunity for women in relation to employment matters. What are employment matters? Under the legislation they are matters that relate to the recruitment procedure and selection criteria for appointment or engagement of persons as employees, the promotion and transfer of employees, the training and staff development of employees, and conditions of service of employees. Under the programs employers would have to consider these matters to see whether within employment and conditions of service there was existing discrimination. If there was they were to remove such discriminations and also to look at positive ways in which, within these criteria, programs could be developed to promote equal opportunity for women. I must stress at this stage that in developing these positive programs there was, nevertheless, a clear and unambiguous overriding provision in section 3 (4) of the Act which states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require a relevant employer to take any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. So there is an obligation to develop positive programs towards the objective of equal opportunity. But when it comes down to the bottom line, there is nothing in the Act that obliges an employer to override the principle of merit. The principal objective is promotion by merit but the objective of the Act is to get certain women into a position where they can better compete on merit. This second piece of legislation goes on in similar terms to the first Bill I have referred to. It deals in greater detail with the form of the program that might be set up. I will not be able to deal with that aspect because of the time constraints today. But it is important for me to mention again that the legislation includes a methodology for attempting to determine whether the program is proving to be successful. Section 8 of the legislation states that a program shall provide for action to be taken `to set objectives and make forward estimates of the program' and of course, `to monitor and evaluate' the program. Employers are required to make a forward estimate of what they might be able or be seeking to achieve and this is further defined in the provisions of that Act. The Act states: `forward estimate' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time; `objective' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle . . . So steps were taken in the Act that we passed in 1986 towards the objectives of making quantitative assessments as to whether the program has proven successful or otherwise. Of course, if it has not proven successful perhaps the program itself should be reconsidered. In this instance the Director of Affirmative Action is to issue guidelines and monitor the effectiveness of affirmative action programs. The employer must lodge public reports and, in some instances, may lodge confidential reports. From those reports some assessment can be made of the quantitative achievement of the plan or otherwise. Again, this legislation can only be described as mild legislation that has an overriding merit provision. The third Bill in the package is the legislation before us today-the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. As is indicated by the title, this Bill applies to certain Commonwealth authorities. The program in relation to women in the legislation is similar to that in the other legislation. It is defined as eliminating discrimination by, against and-again the positive-promoting equal opportunity for women and persons in designated groups. As I said earlier, I am concentrating on women in my presentation today. There is an obligation on Commonwealth authorities to eliminate discrimination and to promote equal opportunity, but to do so-and I stress this again-not in a way that appointments will be made other than on merit. In this Bill we find another merit clause which is in exactly the same terms as in the previous legislation. Clause 3 (4) states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. The contents of the program in clause 6 are again listed in similar terms-that is, to consider policies and examine practices that might identify policies or practices that discriminate against women and to consider any patterns, whether ascertained statistically or otherwise, of lack of equality of opportunity in respect of women or persons in designated groups. and so on. Again, there is some attempt to try to determine in quantitative terms whether a program has been successful. This is a provision which I would, expect to be included in a Bill of this nature. Clause 6 of the program states that the program shall provide for action to be taken: to set: (i) the particular objectives to be achieved by the program; and (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed; Again, I stress that there is little point in having legislation of this type to overcome cases of discrimination that have existed in the past and to devise positive programs towards the objective of equal opportunity if we do not provide some method of assessing as to whether in practice that legislation is proving successful. Such a provision is included in this Bill as it was in the previous legislation. It is important to note that, on any objective assessment, the three Bills, that is the two that are law and the one that is before us today, in no way can be said to impose quotas. In other words, they do not impose upon an employer the obligation to appoint someone to meet a quota irrespective of merit. I remind honourable senators of these two overriding merit provisions that are stated in such clear and unambiguous terms in second and third pieces of legislation. If the Bill before us included quotas in the sense that I have just referred to, I would be opposed to it because to appoint someone on a criterion otherwise than on merit is, of course, unfair to those with greater merit. To put someone in a position where they are better able to compete on merit is a laudable objective. I would have thought this objective would have been supported by this chamber. This legislation makes employers consider positively what needs to be done to ensure that women have equal opportunity within the work force. We need to ensure that women have a fair opportunity to compete for all positions. To create the circumstances of equal opportunity is a principal objective of Australian liberalism. We on this side of the chamber have great faith in the capacity of individuals to contribute to all facets of society to the maximum of their potential provided they are given equality of opportunity. Therefore, it follows that we see it as a function of government to take action to develop such programs as may be appropriate in all the circumstances and as may be necessary to meet the objective of equality of opportunity. We believe that if all Australians are put a position where they can individually contribute and achieve to the maximum of their potential, the sum of their contributions will be the most we can expect from this nation. There has and still remains a need for positive programs to ensure that women have equal opportunity to compete at higher levels of employment. This is a reflection of educational failings of the past. So often it was not considered necessary for girls to have the same level of education as boys because it was not perceived that they would have the same job responsibilities. There have been great improvements, I readily concede, but there are still shortcomings. I could go into the detail that I have discussed in previous speeches on this subject, but I will not. However we still see, for example, a lower percentage of girls studying subjects such as maths, the sciences and so on. Positive programs within schools are necessary to remedy these failings. There has also been a cultural failing. Girls have not grown up with the expectation that they have the right to compete for all jobs at all levels. As a result, there has been a shortage of role models. Obviously it is always more difficult to be the pioneer, to be the first. Unfortunately, in so many areas, these cultural errors continue. One small example that I come across from time to time is that in most co-educational schools boys sport is still seen as more important and deserving of more emphasis than girls sport, so of course opportunities are lost. There are always exceptions; there are always those who achieve against the odds. But what I find sad is that so often it seems that those who succeed against the odds do not see a need for others to have the benefit of extra help. The old process was: `If I succeeded, so can she'. Unfortunately, I have to say that in so many ways women seem to be their own worst enemies. They seem to judge other women by a different and often higher standard than men. I see it in my small world of politics, for example, in preselections. Women electors seem to judge women candidates for preselection more harshly than they do men. The need to break down these cultural shortcomings of the past remains evident. As I have said, there have been improvements. There are now more women in senior positions, but only in relative terms. Again, returning to my own experiences, within the last week or so I sat as a member of an Estimates committee of the Senate at which not only members of the Department of Communications, but also personnel from a number of major statutory authorities, appeared. I noted that, of the 30-odd senior officers who appeared before us, only two were women. Regrettably, those sorts of percentages are typical at those high levels. What I want to stress is that there is still a long way to go. How can this situation be changed? It can be changed by changing people's attitudes-by educational programs, by lifting expectations and by those who have succeeded against the odds proving effective role models for those who may not have the same confidence or determination, or whatever causes them not to try. It is towards those goals that Bills such as this can play a role. They force employers to think about whether women have an equal opportunity to succeed and to achieve their maximum potential and, if they do not, to look at ways in which they might be assisted. Mr Acting Deputy President, you may say to me that a good employer would be doing this in any event, and such is obviously the case. This legislation will not burden such an employer. But, unfortunately, not all employers fall within that category. There are others who need to be encouraged by mild leads from the Australian Parliament, such as the passing of legislation of this type. To put all women in a better position to win promotion by merit is the objective of this legislation. That is consistent with what I understand to be Liberal principles. It is the type of legislation that I would have anticipated we would introduce were we in government, and I certainly would be encouraging it. I have answered one myth-that, because one woman succeeds, help for others is not necessary. I want to deal very briefly with the other myth, which is that this type of legislation in some way downgrades the role of homemakers. It does not. It in no way prejudices those women who choose a career of non-paid work, keeping a home and providing full time care for children. We recognise that those women make a financial sacrifice for what they see as the most valuable contribution they can make to society. Of course, we must have great respect for them, particularly today when it has become so financially difficult to survive on that basis. This Bill does not prejudice their position. It does not help them either, but it is not designed for that purpose. They may not have a fair opportunity to make the choice that they wish to make, but that requires other reforms to meet their reasonable demands. That is similarly consistent with Liberal principles. Society does not equate their contribution in financial terms; perhaps it should. Reforms in taxation would be a step in the right direction. As I draw my remarks to a close, I remind the Senate of what I have said today-that my Party supported the previous two Bills, the 1984 Bill and the 1986 Bill. This Bill is a logical progression. Further than that, my Party even called for it. It is in similar form to the 1986 Bill, principally because it retains the overriding merit principle. I would like to see the amendment that we have moved today succeed. If, from my years of interpreting legislation in legal practice and since, I am correct in my belief and my interpretation of this legislation that there is no significant difference in the wording of the method of assessing the result and achievement-that is, the estimates of quantitative assessment-both the Government and the Australian Democrats would have nothing to lose by accepting our amendments and accepting the identical words that existed in the 1986 Bill. If they did that, it would enable my Party as a whole to vote in support of this Bill. I would have thought that was something that both the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats would want because, obviously, the wider the support one can get within the Parliament for legislation of this type, the stronger the message, the stronger the sign that is given to employers that they should be seriously considering the objectives included in the legislation. Regrettably, I fear that for short term electoral advantage neither the Australian Democrats nor the Australian Labor Party in this place will accept those amendments. I think that is sad. However, if that is the case, consistent with my principles and consistent with the position my Party has adopted in the past, I will have no choice but to vote in support of this Bill. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.48) —I had not intended to speak on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. I had simply intended to vote against it. However, last night in debate my colleague Senator Peter Baume took what I feel is an unfortunate step by describing the position that the Liberal Party of Australia is taking in regard to this Bill as a position that he found discreditable. I am offended and I am hurt by this. Senator Baume said: It is my Party which has moved in that eight months from a civilised stance to a position which I find discreditable and which made my position impossible. He went on at some length on that theme. I do not intend to pursue it further but, as I have said, I am hurt by that and I am offended by it. I have no reason to take exception to Senator Baume having his principles. I, too, have mine. My colleagues and I who intend to vote against this legislation have very strongly held views that we should not support it. I do not feel that it helps the debate at all to justify his position on the legislation by denigrating our views and principles, too. I am sad to be obliged to speak on this legislation because of those comments by my colleague. In this Party, we pride ourselves on the right of members to disagree with the Party and to vote against it, and I would strongly and fiercely defend the right of Senator Baume and his colleagues to vote against the Party's decision. However, I, too, have my views, and I am now bound to set out, as simply as I can, why I will vote against the legislation. I have not been newly converted to a feminist viewpoint; I have held one for many years. I was a foundation member of the Women's Electoral Lobby. I founded and helped to found two women's shelters in one of which I have continued to be involved for about 12 years. I have practised in the areas of marriage and probate law where, traditionally, women have great involvement and are often at a great disadvantage. I understand very well the problems that women face in our society. However, I believe that equal opportunity in education is the key to giving women a fair go in our society. We have equal opportunity in education and, increasingly year by year, more and more girls, by their own bootstraps, are winning their way into the places that they desire to go. Some desire to go to the top, some desire to go to the middle-just as men do-but all citizens can progress in life if they have equality of opportunity in schools. Women need skills, just as men do. It is only by acquiring skills that they acquire the confidence to go to where their ability will take them. Coupled with that, we have sex discrimination legislation in this country that makes it illegal to discriminate against somebody in the work place, or in many other situations in life, on the grounds of sex. Section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 states: (1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person on the grounds of the person's sex, marital status or pregnancy- (a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining who should be offered employment; (b) in determining who should be offered employment; or (c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered. (2) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the grounds of the employee's sex, marital status or pregnancy- (a) in the terms or conditions of employment that the employer affords the employee; (b) by denying the employee access, or limiting the employee's access, to opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment; (c) by dismissing the employee; or (d) by subjecting the employee to any other detriment. It is, therefore, very clear that this legislation is not needed. I object to it for a number of reasons. The argument has been made that we have supported previous legislation. When the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 came before this place, I was a brand new senator. I was concerned about it then, as were my Party and my State. I spoke to Senator Baume at that time about my reservations, but-and I am sure that most of my colleagues would agree that he is a very persuasive gentleman-he persuaded this new senator that her concerns were unnecessary. Senator Crichton-Browne —You should have consulted me, my dear. Senator NEWMAN —Yes, I should have. I am now convinced that my concerns at that time were correct. Senator Puplick —It is a patronising comment-`my dear'. Senator NEWMAN —Yes, but he is a friend, is he not? I took the honourable senator's comment to be a friendly interjection. As I said, I am convinced that my attitude at the time was correct. I am glad that we are now saying that enough is enough. I suspected last year that that legislation was a foot in the door; I am quite convinced of it now. Last year, the legislation was directed at employers with 100 or more employees, and they were subject to that legislation even if the number of employees dropped to 80. Now the employer-even though it is a different employer-has to have only 40 employees to come within the scope of the legislation. It is clear that, eventually, all employers in Australia will be subject to this kind of regulatory legislation. There has been a great deal of discussion about targets and quotas, but I am not prepared to go into that today as it has been well canvassed. However, I direct attention to the fact that a target that has not been met can be pursued by the Minister and the authority can be directed to revise its corporate plan. I draw attention to clauses 11 and 12. Under clause 11 the Minister, having considered the authority's report, can: . . . make a recommendation in writing to the authority lodging the report on the action to be taken by the authority to improve the effectiveness of its program. Clause 12 provides: Where . . . a relevant authority submits a corporate plan to its responsible Minister . . . if that Minister considers that the corporate plan should be revised for the purposes of giving effect to those obligations, shall direct the authority in writing to revise the corporate plan accordingly. That is a pretty enforceable kind of target, whatever one calls it. It is an unattractive form of government interference in an independent statutory authority, which in itself is unacceptable. It is also delving far too deeply into the regulation of that body. Women who have started from the bottom in any enterprise will say that they would hate to think that they got there on anything other than their own merits. Only yesterday I was talking to a number of women from around Australia who came here in a delegation from the Australian Chamber of Commerce. Some of them went back to the work force, after having had families, with no pieces of paper to their name. They struggled through boring jobs to improve their qualifications so that they could rise to the top of their occupations. They were adamant that they never wanted to think that they had achieved that simply as part of somebody's target. It was important to them, to their self-confidence and to their pride in their achievements to know that what they had achieved had been solely on the ground of merit. Yet clause 3 (4), which has been discussed at some length, provides for merit, but does not guarantee that merit will be the sole requirement. I find that objectionable. It has often been found that women who have reached a particularly elevated position are smeared with the suggestion that they got there because they were token women-that they had to be the `statutory women'. We all know of that situation, and this legislation will allow that smear to become entrenched. No one can convince me that someone who is disenchanted with the promotion of a woman to a position to which that person had aspired will not use this legislation to allege that the woman achieved her position as part of the target to be met by the employer. That is offensive. Everyone in this Parliament talks about deregulation; it has become quite fashionable in all parties. However, we cannot mouth that while turning around and putting more obligation on to employers. In this instance we are talking about statutory authorities, but I do not believe that they should be treated any differently from the private sector when it comes to being cost effective. The costs of statutory authorities are met either by the taxpayer, or by the consumers if they provide services to them. In both cases, they should be cost effective, but they will not be if they are burdened with undue regulation. As I said earlier, the Sex Discrimination Act makes it illegal to discriminate against people in the workplace on the ground of sex. Therefore, there is no need to put this further regulation upon them. I am not simply making allegations about regulation. Quite apart from the need to set up programs, state aims, make targets and keep statistics, there is the question of producing reports. Clause 9 of the Bill requires the Authority to make a program report, and if it is not good enough and if the Minister is not happy with it, the statutory authority will have to produce a further report. Under Clause 10, the Minister can require subsequent special reports. That will be enough to keep a few more people on the public payroll for a little longer. It will obviously add to the cost of statutory authorities, so the Bill is unacceptable to me on that ground also. Let there be no doubt about it-I am wholly convinced that every citizen in this country deserves an equal opportunity in life. That does not mean having their paths smoothed for them every inch of the way. Citizens need an equal opportunity to start and then they have to proceed on their own merit. It is offensive to women to be given artificial advancement and particularly to be lumped in with disadvantaged minorities as though women in themselves are a minority. When we stop to think about it, that is extremely offensive and many women find it so. I further object, as I said, to extending regulation of authorities or businesses and to ministerial interference. I do not intend to labour these points; I simply felt compelled to come into this place and put on record my objections to the legislation. I, too, have strong principles as to why I should oppose this legislation. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(11.01) —I rise today to speak briefly on the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987, which is the third part of the Government's strategy supposedly to provide equal employment opportunities for women. The Bill is designed to promote equal employment opportunity in those areas of Australian Government employment that are not covered by the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 or by section 22b of the Public Service Act 1922. We are talking about such authorities as Telecom Australia, Australia Post, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Australian Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd, the Australian Shipping Commission, the National Railways, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade. The Bill seeks to widen the requirement for equal employment opportunity programs to all Commonwealth authorities, including statutory authorities employing 40 or more employees in Australia not at present covered by the previous two Acts. In June last year I spoke at length on the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill. I said then, and I say again now, that I do not think legislating for special change is the answer. The role of women in the Australian work force is growing, which I think is wonderful, as attitudes and lifestyles in Australia change also. Women are making their presence felt in every avenue of Australian working life. I believe that there are few remaining legal barriers against women in Australia in jobs, commercial contracts, politics and social life. Those barriers which do remain stem from traditional attitudes built into society which are not easily changed, particularly by law. I do not believe that any amount of legislation will change a state of mind, if you like, which may be inculcated in the Australian way of life. The only thing which will offset any real barriers which might remain is if women actually perform, and this is happening. They are using their talents and proving that they can do it. I was very interested to read recently the results of a survey on women in small businesses conducted by the Women's Federal Council of the National Party of Australia which found a considerable increase in the number of women contributing directly to the market-place between June 1976 and June 1981. The women surveyed came from all walks of life-from sole and partial owners of businesses, property owners and women in managerial positions through to women in secretarial and clerical positions. Whilst acknowledging that a small minority of women have difficulties regarding discrimination, the majority of women surveyed did not feel disadvantaged. A number of women felt that it was an advantage to be a woman entering small business. The biggest hindrance to these enterprising women was felt to be government controls and legislation. I can understand that. They maintained that it was not sex discrimination that was hindering them in their efforts to be successful. I quote from the survey paper that was released regarding problems experienced by women in business: Problems were many and varied. It was apparent that there was increased difficulty in financing small businesses. With market forces being volatile, it was therefore felt that small business was seen as a risky enterprise, and interest rates were an added problem. Current employment agreements with the trade unions restrict small business. Workers compensation legislation, public health and safety and public liability legislation all contribute to the hidden costs of running a small business. The women said that other major problems are excessive increases in rents, high wages, excessive government charges, taxes and legislation and fuel prices. And so it goes on. There is a long list. The women did not feel that it was sex discrimination hindering them in their efforts to be successful. Most people support justice for all. Male and female should receive equal pay for equal work. I agree with that and our Party agrees with it. Similarly, most people would support the general principle of providing employment, accommodation and finance without discrimination on the ground of sex. But it must be realised that any anti-discrimination legislation in favour of some must discriminate against someone else. I recall the very recent case in America where a woman was awarded a job over a man who was more qualified than she was for the job, on the basis of a quota system. I cannot support that. It is discrimination in reverse. Our Party believes in genuine equality of opportunity. I want to make it perfectly clear that we will not stand for the argument that those who oppose this legislation are against equality of opportunity. We support employment on the basis of merit and not on the basis of quotas or, as this Bill states, `quantitative and other indicators'. This package of three Bills will impose extra regulations on business, even though this Government is supposed to be slashing unnecessary regulations that are presently hampering business activity. The Bill clearly sets out to apply numerical targets or quotas on Commonwealth authorities. Clause 3 (4) states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. However, clause 6 (g) (ii) states: The program of a relevant authority shall provide for action to be taken to set the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. If that is not stating that there will be quotas, then I do not know what is. The Government is quite clearly bringing in legislation which will impose unnecessary and unwarranted regulation on statutory authorities and independent contractors. I believe in people having freedom and choices. I do not believe in social engineering. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that on 31 March last the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tabled a document entitled `Setting the Agenda', which is the Government's discussion paper on improving the status of women until the year 2000. From February 1986 for six months there were consultations with women, including the distribution of a questionnaire which drew 13,500 responses. The discussion paper is no more that a reiteration of ideas to assist social engineering for which this Government is becoming famous. Affirmative action seems to me to be the backbone of the report-in other words, discrimination in reverse-by forcing the acceptance of mediocrity. There is no doubt that competent women, like competent men, will always rise to the top. The fact that someone is mediocre does not give that person the right to overtake someone with more experience or ability because of that person's sex. It is affirmative action with its social engineering aspect being pushed to the limit. If girls are not applying for apprenticeships in traditional men's jobs it could mean that girls do not like that type of work. Forcing the views of members of one section of society on to their brothers or sisters is hardly democratic. There seems to be passive resistance to tampering with attitudes. If women take the view that they are not interested in sport, or other suggested activity for that matter, surely it is a matter for the individual. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in his second reading speech stated: . . . freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. If he believes in that so fervently, why the necessity for quantitative and other indicators? I do not believe this legislation to be in the best interests of women. It is yet another attempt by this Hawke Government to legislate to change the very social fabric of this country, and the National Party does not support it. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(11.11) —I, too, decided only recently to take part in this debate, because I felt that there were a number of issues that needed expansion and a number of statements made in the course of the debate which certainly need correcting. I would first like to pay tribute to the activities over the last 10 or 12 years of women's organisations generally, right across the political spectrum. These include many non-governmental organisations and party women's committees from the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party and, at one stage, also from the National Party under Mrs McKerrow, which took a largely bipartisan approach to the need for legislation of one sort or another at both State and Federal levels in order to approach in a legislative fashion the question of discrimination against women and other disadvantaged groups in the community. We have seen some formidable achievements over the last few years as a result of that coalition of forces from, as I have said, right across the political spectrum. This has included sex discrimination legislation in four States, and at the Federal level in 1984 and, also in 1984, legislation requiring equal opportunity in the Public Service, our affirmative action legislation in 1986, which refers of course to private enterprise, and now, one of the last links in the chain, equal opportunity for workers within Commonwealth statutory authorities. I do not want to labour too much the fact that we have had to wait for a Labor government in order to get this legislation at a Federal level. I acknowledge the fact that it was under the Liberal Premier Sir Rupert Hamer that the Victorian Government introduced its own equal opportunity legislation in 1975 or 1976. My recollection of the activities around this issue go back quite a long way. I will avoid the temptation to reminisce at any great length. I do, however, want to recall a landmark conference which was organised by the National Womens Advisory Council in July 1979. This took place during the period of the Fraser Government, at the time when the National Womens Advisory Council was headed by Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, who, very enthusiastically, convened this conference. It was attended by women from a wide range of non-governmental and political organisations. Papers were given and discussions were held, and at the end of the day there was very strong support right across the board for national anti-discrimination legislation. Amongst the people who spoke that day were representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions the Public Service Board and the legal profession. I spoke of my experiences as a past chair of the Western Australian Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation. As I recall amongst those who objected to the general direction of the day's activities was Senator Walters. At least she has been consistent on this issue. That event also marked one of the first public appearances of `Women Who Want to be Women'-the beginning of an alliance which has a record of dismal failure. It is a small group of people fighting a tide of public opinion against discrimination; a tide of public opinion which recognises very clearly that legislation is not going to change things overnight, that it is not the only measure that must be taken. But, to quote Senator Elstob, a good friend and colleague of mine: `Laws do not change the heart, but laws do change the heartless'. However, I think it is saddening to find that younger and better educated women are taking a similar position to some of the extremely reactionary lines that we have heard from the Opposition in this and similar debates. They should now know better than to accept the blinkered and misogynist approach of the leadership of the Liberal and National parties. I do not often quote from editorials in the Australian, and in fact this might be the first and last time that I will do so. On the question of this legislation, the editorial in today's Australian said, in part: It is not necessary to be obsessively sceptical to believe that the principal motive of the parliamentary Liberals in opposing this Bill is to avoid being outflanked from the Right by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the National Party. That move to the Right is leaving behind the vast majority of women in Australia who now understand exactly what can and cannot be achieved by legislation of this nature, but who also understand that legislation is absolutely essential if public opinion is to be moved towards a position where women and other disadvantaged groups are to have their proper place in society. Another tribute I pay here relates to an example of an ecumenism which we experience in Western Australia. Indeed, it was an incident of courage and integrity of a high order, when a leading Liberal woman used her powers of persuasion to encourage the Liberal Party Opposition in Western Australia not to block the State anti-discrimination legislation which was introduced by the Burke Government in late 1983 or 1984. We have also seen a commonality of attitude towards child care among women of the conservative parties and women of the Labor Party, and once again, non-governmental organisational women, where there has been strong support for community-based child care as against the privatised child care that seems to be preferred by some of our conservative opponents. They understand very well that child care can be produced at a high standard only when it is very thoroughly supervised and controlled by community-based groups, which is not to say that there has to be an excessive amount of government regulation, which seems to be the bogey phrase for this morning. There is a wide congratulation for the Hawke Government on the way in which it has taken up the question of children's services generally and introduced much more child care to a public starved and desperately in need of the services that we have been able to develop within the last three or four years. Reference has been made very fleetingly in this debate to the fact that this legislation refers not just to women, but that we require of statutory authorities a sensitivity to the needs of people with disabilities, to migrants, those whose first language is not English and, of course, to Aboriginals. There was some doubt cast last night by Senator Knowles about whether it was possible to employ people with certain types of disabilities. I refer her to the Public Service Board Annual Report of 1985-86 which gives, on pages 39 through to 56, an account of five years experience with various programs to encourage into the Public Service people with that range of handicaps, of language, of ethnicity, of colour and of disablement. She will find there quite an encouraging story. Obviously, the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau is not satisfied with what it has been able to achieve, but efforts have been made, there are programs under way. The Director of the Bureau should be sincerely congratulated on the way in which these initiatives have been handled. Many of us are very well aware of the fact that it is extremely difficult to persuade entrenched and somewhat conservative senior management, whether it is in the public sector, in the private sector or in statutory authorities, to look beyond their traditional fields for promotion, for training opportunities, and so forth. I will go into a glaring example of this in more detail later. Acknowledging the problem of providing opportunities for women is a challenge, we have also to acknowledge that the problems of those other groups-migrants, Aborigines, and the disabled-are even more difficult to overcome. Why should statutory authorities of the Commonwealth Government be allowed to ignore their responsibilities in this respect any more than their responsibilities to women? Why should they be allowed to continue to ignore the talents of very many people in the community who come within those particular disadvantaged groups? Why should they not be forced to face up to those responsibilities? If honourable senators look at this report, as I recommend they do, they will find that a total of 1,772 people with disabilities were appointed to base grade clerical administrative and clerical assistant positions in the calendar years 1980 to 1985 inclusive. The report states: The appointments, made through the Special Placement Program, represented 3.59 per cent of all base-grade appointments in this period. These figures probably understate the total number of people with disabilities appointed to these positions as it is known that numbers of applicants with non-visible disabilities such as epilepsy, do not seek assistance from Special Placement Officers. It is quite obvious, I think, to anybody who is at all observant that over the last few years we have seen workers within this Parliament House with disabilities of one sort or another, people who are employed, encouraged, trained and supported in exactly the way that we would wish in order that they may have much more fulfilling lives than they would on a pension, able to take a place in society that would otherwise not be available to them. Some honourable senators may have seen the very popular magazine Chips, written and produced by hearing-impaired staff in Sydney. It has a nationwide readership in the Commonwealth and State departments. As a Western Australian senator, Senator Knowles may have also seen the newsletter `Work Able' which gives news of interested disabled staff in the Australian Public Service to departments in Western Australia. We all look to the time when our statutory authorities accept this particular responsibility in a similar way to the Public Service Board. Migrants of non-English speaking backgrounds are catered for within a range of activities designed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau in the Public Service Board. The programs in the last year have focused mainly on the provision of information and career development. I will leave honourable senators to read the rest of that particular chapter for their edification. This Bill is absolutely crucial in order that those minorities have their needs catered for within the statutory bureaucracies of which we are speaking and which in many cases employ many thousands of people. The Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau now has some years of experience of attempting to provide that sort of support and training in employment and thoroughly endorses this legislation. It agrees with the Government and with a substantial number of members of the Opposition that the time has come when statutory authorities should be drawn within this safety net that has gradually been developed over the years in order that every individual possibly able to lead a full life within the work force is able to do so. We have had reference to the fact that women will pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and indications of deploring token women, and so on. I would like to give an example of what can happen in a large-a great, some would say-financial institution, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation which is highly regarded for its financial dealings but not so highly regarded when its managerial and industrial practices are examined. As of 30 June 1986, approximately 15,500 women were employed nationwide by the Commonwealth Bank. This is about 50 per cent of its total employees. Of those women 85 per cent, or 13,100, are in non-classified positions. That means that they are effectively going nowhere. Their salaries, range from $7,500 to $21,500 per year. The vast majority of that group of women would be at the lower end of the salary scale, 90 per cent earning less than $15,000 a year. One would have to ask: Are these all mediocre women? They are not my words. That was a suggestion made by Senator Bjelke-Petersen, that it is only mediocre women who do not rise to great heights. Can we say that these are ordinary women being treated in a very extraordinary way in this year, 1987, by a management which takes a stereotyped and conservative view of women and their place in society? To go on with this litany of woe from the Commonwealth Bank, there are 900 people employed as keyboard operators and their salary range is from $17,800 per year to $22,700 per year. These are up to date figures from the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association. The number of more fortunate women employed by the Commonwealth Bank under its general classification is 1,500. All but about 20 or 30 of them are in the first three to four ranges which puts them within a salary range of $22,000 to $28,000 a year. So about 99.9 per cent of women employed in the Commonwealth Bank will be earning less than $28,000 a year and the vast majority of them earn less than $15,000 a year. If that were not tragedy enough I will come back to the point that I made before, that the opportunities for promotion, for any sort of training and preferment is simply not there for most of them. They are trapped in those low classifications. I am told that the Commonwealth Bank has had some sort of equal employment policy for something like 20 years. I must say that the evidence of the success of that is totally absent. One woman has reached the giddy heights of an executive salary of $40,000-one woman-and 29 women only are in management positions as against 2,500 men in middle or upper management positions. My elementary maths suggest to me that the ordinary woman becoming an employee of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has one 120th of a chance of becoming a manager by comparison with the ordinary man being employed by that same Corporation. Would anybody be prepared to suggest that the vast majority of men who go into the Commonwealth Bank are geniuses and the vast majority of women do not have the skills or potential that are required? I do not for one minute believe that that is the case. I believe that the legislation is absolutely essential. The Commonwealth Bank and such organisations should be showing other Australian management and business how well they can use the talents of the people they employ. They should be taking that responsibility. They should pull up their socks; never mind their bootstraps. Let us have a bit of commercial intelligence from the management of the Commonwealth Bank and some recognition of the fact that it is wasting a vast amount of the talent from among the women it employs. There are no mechanisms for the retention of the skills that women in the lowest positions acquire. In most cases there is very little opportunity for them to become anything more than unclassified clerks and tellers. One of the reasons is that they completely lose their status if they go on maternity leave. Since 1979 in Australia there has been in private enterprise provision for maternity leave without loss of status and entitlements. However, in the Commonwealth Bank, a woman having a child, who takes her leave and goes back, loses her status. What encouragement is there for a woman to persevere within a bureaucracy of that nature? I cannot support the legislation strongly enough. I find it a source of great satisfaction that there are courageous people among the Opposition who are prepared to take an objective view of what we are seeking to achieve. I am extremely disappointed to hear that so many women on the other side of the House are unprepared to consider even their own experience and activities over the years, and simply ignore what has been happening to women and brush it aside with references to tokenism and so on. Fifteen years ago there were those of us who were token and statutory women. However, we made it our business to make sure that the experience we gained in those token positions was used to ensure that the ordinary, intelligent Australian woman had the same opportunities as the ordinary, intelligent Australian man. The examples that I have given today I think show that that is still not the normal practice, that the process will take a great deal longer than if we have, within our laws, some statutory requirement for the management of authorities such as the Commonwealth Bank to revise their practices, within a relatively short period, and to start showing results. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.33) —For the reasons that I will outline, it is not my intention to support the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. Senator Giles referred to the legislation as being the last link in the chain. Perhaps it would be, if it were the same as the other links. The Australian Labor Party has abused the bipartisanship to which Senator Giles referred, which, I admit, has prevailed with such legislation until the present. Senator Giles referred to the 1979 National Women's Advisory Council conference which gave strong support for anti-discrimination legislation. We have supported that legislation. It has been reiterated in this debate that the legislation goes back some time. The Race Discrimination Act 1975 is part of the history, along with the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Reference has been made to the Public Service Reform Act 1984 and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill of last year, which we supported. Now we have the present legislation, but it is not the one that links the chain. Senator Giles also said that statutory authorities should not be left out of this form of legislation. We could not agree more with that. Senator Giles and the Labor Party will remember that in August last year when this matter was debated in the chamber, we moved an amendment to include statutory authorities. Who rejected it? The Labor Party and the Australian Democrats. They were not prepared to include statutory authorities in the legislation at that time. Let no one suggest that we have not supported this type of legislation for statutory authorities. We moved an amendment and the Labor Party and the Democrats, to their great discredit, voted against it. We were told at the time that similar legislation would be brought in covering statutory authorities, but that has not occurred. Let us consider the pieces of legislation about which we are talking. We have heard about the clause which many people allege enshrines merit in the legislation. I agree that the principle is worded in a similar way in section 3 (4) of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act and clause 3 (4) of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. The present legislation states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. The legislation does not enshrine merit; it merely says that nothing in the Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with it. If it were a genuine enshrinement of the spirit of merit, it would be worded quite differently. It would assert positively that merit was to be the overwhelming criterion in the promotion of anybody in the field of employment. Honourable senators may say that we did not argue much about that on the previous occasion. The previous legislation related to employers generally. This Bill gives an additional authority to the Minister. Clause 12 (1) states: The responsible Minister in respect of a relevant authority who has elected to lodge reports with that Minister may, in writing, give general directions to the authority with respect to the performance of its obligations under this Act. That wording is quite different from that contained in the previous legislation. It has been suggested in this debate that such a clause applies in a number of the Acts which establish statutory authorities, some of which have been mentioned specifically. Why is it necessary for it to be included in this Bill if it does not relate specifically to this Bill and the provisions contained in it? One speaker in the debate quoted the Acts Interpretation Act. I know what that means too. That is all the more reason why I question the fact that the clause has been put into this legislation when it is contained in the general legislation establishing so many statutory authorities. Merit is not enshrined in this Bill as the overriding determining factor of the employment and promotion of any person. I repeat that it merely states that nothing in the Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle of merit. If people in a position of authority do not regard merit as important in promotion, nothing in the legislation requires them positively to regard merit as a matter of importance. I think it is time people recognised that. A further area of the legislation which is substantially different from the previous legislation needs to be considered in some detail. Under the heading `Contents of affirmative action program', section 8 (1), paragraphs (a) to (h), the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Act, which was before the Senate last year, sets out the matters that shall be taken into account by a relevant employer. We get a similar provision, the contents of the program, in clause 6 of the Bill which we are now debating, which also deals with a number of similar provisions. But then we get to a stage where it is significantly, substantially and, I say, fatally different. Clause 8 (2) of the Bill introduced last year states: An affirmative action program of a relevant employer may contain any other provision that the relevant employer thinks fit that is not inconsistent with- (a) a provision required by this section to be included; and (b) the purposes of this Act. Sub-paragraph (iii) then describes a forward estimate. A forward estimate needs to be defined because it is referred to in paragraph (g). It states: `forward estimate' means a quantitative measure or aim, which may be expressed in numerical terms, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time; Who could argue with that? It continues: `objective' means a qualitative measure or aim, expressed as a general principle, designed to achieve equality of opportunity for women in employment matters, being a measure or aim that can reasonably be implemented by the relevant employer within a specified time. We did not argue with that; we supported it. Let us go back to the Bill which we have before us today and look at the clause which differs. It does not go on in the same way to sub-clause (2) as does the previous Bill; it deals with these matters under paragraphs (g) and (h). As has been conceded by an opponent of our position, someone who intends to support this Bill, numbers are intended. I agree that specific numbers have not been set, but the powers of the Minister referred to in clause 12-also referred to in clause 11-are not far from powers enabling a Minister to stipulate what the numbers will be. Clause 6 states: A relevant authority shall provide for action to be taken: That is covered in paragraph (a) to (f). Paragraph (g) states: to set: (i) the particular objectives to be achieved by the program; and (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. The numbers are to be important. The word `and' being different from the word `or' in the previous Bill is absolutely significant and absolutely crucial. To suggest otherwise is quite absurd. Paragraph (h) states: to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the program and: (i) to assess the achievement of those objectives; and (ii) to assess the effectiveness of the program by comparing statistics and information collected and recorded under paragraph (e) with the indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. In this Bill it is quite clear that the numbers have a priority which they did not have previously. Senator Vanstone has put the matter quite simply and graphically. I guess she will do so again when she speaks. If a person is before a magistrate or a judge whose powers in relation to sentencing are to impose a fine or a goal sentence, that is very different from a person facing a magistrate or a judge whose obligation is to impose a fine and a goal sentence. Senator Vanstone put her finger quite neatly on the difference between these pieces of legislation when she described the differences in these provisions in that way. I want to refute any suggestion that the Liberal Party's position in relation to being totally supportive of equal employment opportunity for women is not beyond reproach. A number of issues which we have brought in indicate this. In 1976 the Women's Welfare Issues Consultative Committee was set up to advise the Minister for Social Security on issues relating to special welfare needs of women. In 1976 we established the Office of Child Care within the Department of Social Security. In 1976 we introduced the family allowance scheme which replaced the child endowment arrangements at increased rates. In 1978 there was the extension of rehabilitation services to housewives. In 1979 eligibility for pensioner health benefit was extended to single parents and dependants. In 1980 the Commonwealth took full responsibility for single parent pensions and dropped the State six-month qualifying period. In 1983 there was the family income support scheme to assist low income families. There have been a number of other actions. In 1976 we introduced equal treatment for female public servants under the Superannuation Act. In 1976 the Liberal Prime Minister suggested women's units in Public Service departments to consider the concerns and rights of women in formulating policy and administering programs. They were set up in the Department of Education, the Department of Social Security, the Attorney-General's Department, the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. In 1976 the Interdepartmental Working Group on Women's Affairs was established as a formal avenue for co-ordination between departments and to monitor the progress under the world plan of action of the United Nations Decade for Women. In 1976 the Women's Film Fund was established to provide support for investment in films for, by and about women. The Shopfront Information Service and the Office of Women's Affairs were established in 1978. The Women's Advisory Body Working Party led in 1977 to the establishment of the National Women's Advisory Council which held the very successful conference in 1979 to which Senator Giles referred earlier. Up until 1982 the Liberal Party had attracted the greatest percentage of women members of this Parliament. Our record is clear. We have supported the legislation up until now because it has very clearly been offering equal employment opportunity to women. This legislation goes far beyond that; it enshrines affirmative action. It is a pity that we have the legislation in this form, because honourable senators must remember that it was our proposition that the statutory authorities be included last year when the matter was debated and we moved an amendment in that form. I believe the form of this Bill downgrades the position of women. I think it is offensive. If it were the same as it was last year, we would be supporting it. Another confusion is whether or not the legislation has been referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit. It certainly is legislation which we were led to believe would be referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, this week indicated that the Government had had the chance to have a look at it. I think that was the way he put it. But an answer given by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in the other place, I think also this week, would indicate that the Government had not looked at it. That is also a matter going to the credibility of the Labor Party that really needs to be cleared up when this matter is finally addressed. It is with great disappointment that I tell the Senate that I will not be supporting this legislation because it is not the same. It does something that is quite different and embarks on a different course. That being the case, we want statutory authorities to be under the same provisions for equal employment opportunity for women. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(11.48) —The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill is the third of three Bills introduced by the Labor Government in the field of equal opportunity in employment in Australia. The first two Bills were supported by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia and were passed into law, the second Bill as recently as eight months ago. This Bill is not supported by the Liberal Party. The grounds for that opposition have been outlined by some previous speakers on this side of the chamber. Equality of opportunity in education, in employment, in all aspects of life itself, is absolutely fundamental to the Liberal Party-so too the fundamental tenet of equality before the law. I support the proposition, which is the purpose of this Bill, that employees of Commonwealth authorities are treated equally and without favour in that appointment and promotion are on merit. Two questions need to be answered: First, is there a need for this legislation? Secondly, is it the best way to go about it? Dealing with the first question, it could be argued that there is no need for this legislation. I am not aware that in 1987 any person's career in a Commonwealth statutory authority is being affected by managerial bias against that person. I am talking about today-not the 1920s, the 1940s or even the 1970s. There is such an awareness in management in Commonwealth authorities that there are no pressing grounds for introducing legislation of this nature. Both the Bill itself and the second reading speech of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) indicate that the Bill is primarily but not exclusively directed towards women. In Australia today any woman with the requisite ability and the will to succeed-the two must go together-will be successful in her chosen career. Having said that, I recognise that there are a number of Australian women entering or in the work force who feel the need for some reinforcement by law that they be treated equally and fairly in all employment matters. I have a personal preference not to have separate policies for women, let alone separate legislation, for I believe that women are free and equal partners in the human race. I regret that they feel the way they do, but I can understand their position because at times that position has been founded on unfortunate personal experience. We are in a changing society. The numbers of women now in the Australian work force bear no relation to the traditional numbers of 10 or 15 years ago or earlier times. The present numbers of women in the work force will not decline. Recognising the feelings of some of these women, certainly not all of them, I have no objection to legislating to ensure that women and everyone else in the community receive fair and equal treatment. That is an entirely different proposition to legislating for affirmative action, that is, placing a person who does not have the ability to perform a task in a position purely to satisfy some numerical quota related to sex, race or religion. The vast majority of Australian women do not want that sort of approach. They do not want tokenism and they do not want concessions; they want their success to be as a consequence of their own efforts and their own abilities. The second question I posed was whether this Bill was the best way to tackle the problem, and the answer to that question is no. I do not believe that we can legislate for morals, for ethics or for manners-they are the products of education not of legislation-but this Bill strays in that direction. The record of legislation as a means to improve or change our behaviour has been one of failure. Legislation of this kind always attracts the zealots and the extremists. Failure occurs when what started out as a laudable goal becomes the object of ridicule and derision in the community because the means become perverted. There can be no better example of this process than the demise of the Human Rights Commission and the even more rapid demise of its successor the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission is at present trying to rehabilitate itself after a spate of bad publicity. Fines imposed on alleged offenders after trials in its own courts, such as the case in Brisbane where, according to the Press, a doctor was fined $1,000 for asking a patient whether she was married or single when he was taking a case history before treating her, are not part of the Australian way of life. It is a wasted effort to try to reform the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. The great majority of Australians see no purpose in it. Sadly, this is the fate of all that sort of legislation which seeks to change attitudes by legislation rather than through the slower educational means. I now turn to the Bill itself. A large part of the Bill-in fact, the largest part, comprising over two pages-is Part III entitled `Reports by relevant authorities'. I would prefer that such a detailed system of reports from every Commonwealth authority every year to a Minister or the Public Service Board was not part of the legislation. The system can be self-regulating with the onus of appeal resting on the individual who feels aggrieved, supported by an informed and educated management system over the top. I categorically reject the closing paragraph of the Minister's second reading speech where he says in relation to financial impact: There will be a minimal financial impact on statutory authorities as a result of the allocation of some staff resources to equal employment opportunity programs. There will be a considerable financial impact from legislation in this form. The benefits will not justify the administrative costs. A self-regulating program will reduce the bureaucratic expense. I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues with great care in relation to Part II of the Bill. While respecting their right to do so I cannot agree with their interpretation of clause 6 (g) that quotas are an essential part of this Bill, though I will support them in their amendment to make this clause the same as that in the previous Bill. As I made clear earlier I am opposed to quotas but to me clause 6 (g) has nothing sinister in it. Clause 6 (g) (i) provides: The particular objective to be achieved by the program . . . To me that can be interpreted, and should be interpreted, as meaning that the management objective is to have fair and equal treatment for all employees. Clause 6 (g) (ii) provides: The quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. Similarly, that need not be seen in a sinister light. It may be that there are positions where changes could take place over a period, as people are promoted, transferred or retired. But on the other hand there may well be no need for change at all and that interpretation is not denied by the present wording of clause 3 (g) (ii). If some zealot interpreted sub-clauses (g) (i) and (ii) as meaning quotas, targets or any euphemisms for a numerical total, the Bill prevents this by the clear proviso in clause 3 (4) in the interpretation section at the start of the Bill. In plain English, clause 3 (4) provides: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That is unambiguous. Merit is the determinant. Clause 3 (4) is an overriding proviso on all subsequent clauses of this Bill. Employment in Australia as a consequence of changed social attitudes is now quite different from what it was 20 years ago. Most Australian women want to work for a major part of their lives. Senator Crichton-Browne —Does yours? Senator MacGIBBON —My wife has had two careers quite independent of me and they have both been very successful. There is also a large number of migrants in the work force. Attempts have been made to legislate for fairness in employment matters by both the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party. As I made clear in the earlier part of my speech, I believe that the preferred approach is through education rather than through legislation. Where legislation is involved it should be a statement of intent, not a means of coercion. I believe it is time that the Parliament reviewed carefully how the previous legislation is working in practice, for I have reservations about how relevant some of it is. I will be voting for the amendments proposed by Senator Chaney. If those amendments fail I will vote for the Bill on the clear understanding that I will support a thorough review of this and all other equal opportunity legislation when we come into office in six months time. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.00) —We are debating the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. I oppose this legislation. This is not in contradiction to my previous position. I think I was the only person in the Senate who refused to support the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. At the outset I refer to what this Government has attempted to portray as a contradiction in terms. Opposition to this Bill does not in any way reflect opposition to equal opportunity in employment, and I am opposed to this Bill. It indicates the poor level of public debate which has surrounded this Bill that there are still people who choose to believe that anyone who opposes this Bill does not support the principle of equal opportunity in employment; that they are sexist, racist or out to put down women or migrants. It is the people who take that myopic view who reek of bigotry and prejudice. It is perhaps a reflection of the level of the barren intellectual debate that has taken place on this legislation that there are people who believe that if one does not support the legislation one does not support equality. The fact is that the Bill does not create equal opportunity; it creates an advantage for certain groups. It is all about the counting of heads. It involves a crude comparison of the numbers of women and other groups with the inevitable conclusion being drawn that if one authority has more people from these groups employed its equal employment program has been more successful. Despite claims that the Bill will not undermine the merit principle, it is all about evaluation of employment programs on the basis of numbers, or de facto quotas. As such, it will lead to the institutionalisation of discrimination, not its elimination. The second reason I oppose this Bill is that it will not assist women and certain minority groups; it will actually disadvantage them. It will be a sad day for women and migrants if this legislation is passed. Their achievements will immediately be open to doubt when the public realises that they may owe their positions to nothing more than institutionalised discrimination. Tragically, once the doubt is planted in the public's mind the great talents and many of the fine achievements of women, migrants and Aboriginals will be open to suspicions and doubts which at present do not exist and which are not justified. Finally, the Bill is yet another regulation which in this instance will cost public authorities a great deal of unproductive time and money. I shall now underline some of the provisions of the Bill before going on to show how I believe the Bill will institutionalise discrimination and disadvantage the very group it aims to help. The Bill covers those Commonwealth authorities which employ more than 40 people and which are not subject to the Public Service Act or which are not covered by the affirmative action legislation passed last year. Essentially, these are the autonomous Commonwealth bodies such as the Commonwealth Bank and Telecom Australia. However, the Bill provides an exemption for the major statutory marketing authorities for primary produce. Authorities covered are to commence equal employment opportunity programs from 1 July 1987. I note that such a provision is contained in legislation recently introduced into the House of Representatives affecting the wool industry and the reconstruction of the Australian Wool Corporation. It is important to point out that the program does not cover only employees of authorities in the normal sense of the word but also contractors. When an authority examines the positions of women employees it will also look at the numbers of women, Aboriginal and migrant contractors. After commencement of the program the employer is to collect statistics about the employment of women, to identify policies and practices which discriminate against women to see whether statistically or otherwise there is a lack of equality of opportunity for women, to set objectives and the quantitative or other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed and to assess the achievements of the program by comparing statistics and information collected with the indicators against which the program is to be assessed. I have mentioned only women but the same provisions apply to Aboriginal, migrants and Torres Strait Islanders. There are also other requirements, such as informing employees and consulting trade unions. Authorities are required to report annually to their Minister, including in the report much of the above information. Why do I say that this Bill is not about equal opportunity and is in fact about the introduction of quotas? True, there is no stipulation in the Bill that certain percentages of women have to be employed. It has been quoted a number of times that nothing in the Bill is to be taken to undermine the principle that employment should be based on merit. I judge the Bill not to be about equal opportunity because at the same time the Bill goes into great detail about the collection of statistics on the numbers of women employed in various areas. It refers to ascertaining patterns of suspected lack of equality by statistical means. Finally, it refers to assessing equal employment opportunity programs by comparing them with quantitative indicators. There is an obvious conflict between the suggestion that people can be both appointed on merit and appointed to match some statistical target. The likelihood of this conflict occurring becomes more apparent when it is appreciated that the success of Government authorities in implementing these programs will be determined by comparing the statistical number of women employed with the numerical target. The immediate assumption, of course, will be that if an authority has not achieved an increase in the proportion of women and migrants in its employment it will not have been as successful as an authority which has. It is no good pointing to clause 3 (4) of this Bill and saying, as the Bills supporters have done, that the Bill says that nothing should interfere with the principle of appointment on merit. The important point is not so much what is written in the Bill, for the Bill is a mere piece of paper; it is how the Bill will have effect when enacted. It is comparable to saying that a Bill of Rights in the Soviet Union preserves and protects the rights and privileges of individuals in Soviet Russia. When there is an obvious conflict between the merit provision and the evaluation of the success of programs based on the statistics of employment of women, in which direction will the public authorities lean? The answer is obvious: They will bend over backward to see that they are able to increase the number in the protected groups that they employ and they will do this even if it means appointing people who are not well qualified. I remind the Senate that employment with the Government, or in this case statutory authorities, is effectively secured tenure. An employee has almost to commit a crime before he is sacked. This inevitably means the retention of some dead wood. It becomes apparent that if it means a quiet night and the avoidance of industrial trouble which may be caused by a dismissal, government authorities will be prepared to sacrifice the objective of an efficient work force. The pressure on statutory authorities will be just the same, with Ministers looking over their shoulders to see what improvement authorities have made to the employment of women. If the best people available are not women, Aboriginals, migrants or Torres Strait Islanders, and an authority is lagging behind in making up this target quota it will appoint a less qualified person from the selected groups. As if almost an impetus for this debate, the United States of America Supreme Court recently decided the case of Johnson v. The Santa Clara County. I intend to quote extracts from the judgment because, I very much regret to say, it shows an occurrence in the United States of that which this legislation will bring to Australia. Johnson and Joyce were employees of Santa Clara County. Johnson was a man who had worked for the Santa Clara County since 1967. Joyce had worked for the County since 1970. In 1979 a vacancy occurred for the position of road dispatcher. Both applied. Johnson was initially judged to the better candidate. Sadly for Johnson, the Santa Clara County had an affirmative action program in place. The co-ordinator of affirmative action intervened in the appointment and Joyce was appointed. There was no argument by any party that Joyce's sex had played a role in her appointment. It was also found at the trial that Johnson was more qualified than Joyce. The case went to court on an application by Johnson that the appointment offended the United States Civil Rights Act which outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion or ethnic origin. In a dissenting judgment, Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice and Justice White agreed, quoted excerpts from the facts found at the trial. These facts were not open to doubt in the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia, when talking about and quoting from the agency's affirmative action plan, said: The one message that the plan unmistakably communicated was that concrete results were expected, and supervisory personnel would be evaluated on the basis of the affirmative action numbers that they produced. The plan's implementation was expected to `result in a statistically measureable yearly improvement in the hiring, training and promotion of minorities, women and handicapped persons in the major job classifications utilised by the agency where these groups are underrepresented.' Its preface declared that `the degree to which the agency division attains the plan's objectives will provide a direct measure of that division director's personal commitment to the EEO policy'. Quite obviously, the program was to be evaluated on numbers and the director was under considerable pressure to see that the numbers were kept up. That was the climate in which Johnson found himself. Scalia, in quoting from the findings of fact at the trial, continued: If the affirmative action co-ordinator had not intervened, `the decision as to whom to appoint would have been made by the road operators divisions director' . . . who had recommended that Johnson be appointed to the position. Likewise the even more extraordinary findings that James Graebner, the agency director who made the appointment, did not inspect the applications and related examination records of either Paul Johnson or Diane Joyce before making his decision, and indeed `did little or nothing to inquire into the results of the interview process and conclusions which were described as of critical importance to the selection process'. The agency director actually said in testimony: Mr Morton- that is, the affirmative action director- was less interested in the particular individual; he felt that this was an opportunity for us to take a step toward meeting our affirmative action goals and because there was only one person on the eligibility list who was one of the protected groups, he felt that this afforded us an opportunity to meet those goals through the appointment of that member of a protected group. The district court which tried the issue found that Joyce's sex was the determining factor, that Johnson was more qualified and that `but for Mr Johnson's sex, male, he would have been promoted to the position of road dispatcher'. It is my belief that Australia will see more Johnsons as public authority administrators battle to ensure that they appear in a good light by appointing people from chosen groups. It should be pointed out that the Santa Clara County did not engaged in affirmative action programs involving the legal requirement that quotas be met. Its circumstances were almost identical to the 1986 legislation and the legislation which the Government seeks to impose upon us now. The county simply sought to employ on a case by case basis people from minority groups and women in an attempt to redress what it perceived to be an imbalance between the number of the people it employed and their representation in the county at large. To appoint people with one eye on numbers, even when not statute bound to do so, necessarily involved Santa Clara appointing people to positions who were not the most qualified. The same will happen in Australia. As I said at the outset of my speech, it will be a sad day for the appointment of women and minorities when this legislation is passed. Few pieces of legislation could do their cause more injury. Again, this is something which the Labor Party just does not seem to understand. My own colleagues, whose opinions I respect and whose right to disagree with the apparent majority of the party room I defend absolutely, given that I have crossed the floor on more occasions than most, at least do not see this legislation, as I understand it from what Senator MacGibbon said, as an end in itself and no doubt acknowledge that it is an education process that will influence public opinion, not government edicts. No doubt, for many, it is the spirit of this legislation that they support. In fine socialist tradition, one founded upon the belief that governments can fix everything, the Australian Labor Party does not understand that all problems cannot be fixed by legislation. In so many cases, just passing a law does not solve problems. Sometimes it even makes them worse. In my view, this is one such case. It is only the most superficial analysis which looks at the employment of women, counts heads and says that if the number can be increased, we are striking a blow for women. A far more long term approach realises that the cause of women and minorities will be advanced when the community perception and recognition of their talents and skills improves. This Bill frustrates the recognition of those talents. Any women, Aboriginals or migrants who currently hold positions of responsibility do so through their own efforts and talents. These talents are not open to any doubt. They would not have their positions if they were not capable. This legislation and the affirmative action legislation, which I also opposed, inject another criterion into the appointment of these women which is unrelated to their ability-that is, their sex or their race. It is, as I said, the institutionalisation of racism and sexism. The moment this happens it undermines so much of the hope that community attitudes may be changed and that the contributions which the people from these groups can make, will be recognised. After this legislation and the affirmative action legislation, there will be an immediate suspicion that women and minority races gained their positions because of this legislation and not because of talent. As I have sought to demonstrate, when operating in a system of institutionalised racism and institutionalised sexism there will be many cases where this is true. People of little talent will be appointed just to make up the numbers. The great tragedy will be, however, that the suspicion will not stop with those who are not talented. It will hang over the heads of all people from the groups the Government so erroneously thinks it is helping. Many men who miss out on positions to which women are appointed will immediately use the scapegoat that they were like Johnson, victims of affirmative action. In some cases they will be justified but they will say the same things in many other cases where there is no justification at all. This does not stop with the disappointed applicant. It spreads through whole industries and departments. It does not take many Johnsons and Joyces before all the people in the protected group are suspected. The harm that this might do to women is immeasurable both in terms of public image and self-esteem. How would it be if I raised the contention that Senator Ryan was endorsed and elected to the Senate on the basis of her sex rather than on her ability or her talent? I have no doubt that she would be highly offended, notwithstanding the fact-- Senator Ryan —It means that you do not understand the Labor Party. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I know that the Labor Party has passed resolutions, of which I think Senator Giles was the architect, calling for a certain number of woman members and senators on its side of politics by a certain date. I know that that is a fact. I am not for a moment suggesting that Senator Ryan happened to come within the quota; I am simply saying that she would take great exception if ever it were suggested that she was selected for any other reason than her capacity, talents and ability. I am sure that she would be highly offended if there was any suggestion, any slur, any doubt- Senator Robertson —Are you here for the same reason? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, but the honourable senator can add good looks in my case. Of course, I only put that proposition and that theoretical view and illustration to raise the point that many people will be perceived to be in that category and, of course, they will take offence. But it is sad that the community will perceive them to be where they are because of numbers and their sex and not because of their ability. What an intolerable blow that would be to these people and their self-esteem. This sort of thing certainly happens. The term `token black' has become part of the language in the United States. It covers instances where the first eligible black is placed in some position or perhaps on a board for the cynical purpose of projecting a favourable corporate image. We all know of cases where a black is promoted to middle management. He is put in front of a big, shiny wooden desk where the public can all see him, simply so that the company or the corporation can say: `Here is our middle management, here is our contribution to equality'. Of course, the poor black sits there twiddling his thumbs and waiting for his fortnightly pay packet. I have no doubt that the attitude of Aboriginals, migrants and women is changing. Each group is recognised more and more as having a wealth of talent. Business and governments are employing more in these groups even without legislation such as this Bill. To illustrate the point that women can succeed, and at the same time explode yet another myth, I would like to examine the appointment of women to high public positions. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three tables. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- Table 1 LIST OF FEMALE JUDGES IN THE FAMILY COURT, FEDERAL COURT, HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURTS. (NOW AND PREVIOUSLY). WHEN APPOINTED AND BY WHOM. Family Court of Australia Chief Justice Elizabeth Evatt. Appointed 1976 by Hon. Robert Ellicott, M.P., Federal Attorney-General. Liberal Party. Lusink, Hon. Justice Margaret. Appointed 1976 by Hon. Robert Ellicott, M.P. Liberal Party. Murray, Hon. Justice Kemeri Ann. Appointed 1976 by Hon. Robert Ellicott, M.P. Liberal Party. Maxwell, Hon. Justice Josephine Mary Highfield. Appointed 1976 by Hon. Robert Ellicott, M.P. Liberal Party. Bulbeck, Hon. Justice Doreen. Appointed 1982 by Senator the Hon. Peter Durack, Attorney-General. Liberal Party. Renaud, Hon. Justice Margaret Ann. Appointed 1983 by Senator the Hon. Gareth Evans, Attorney-General. Australian Labor Party. Lawrie, Hon. Justice Mary Jane. Appointed 1986 by Hon. Lionel Bowen, M.P., Attorney-General. Australian Labor Party. Federal Court of Australia None. High Court Gaudron, Hon. Justice Mary Genevieve. Appointed 1987 by Hon. Lionel Bowen, M.P., Attorney-General. Australian Labor Party. Supreme Court New South Wales-None. Queensland-None. South Australia-Mitchell, Hon. Justice Roma Flinders. Appointed 1965-83 by Hon. Colin Davies Rowe, MLC, Attorney-General, South Australia. Liberal Country League. Tasmania-none. Victoria-none. West Australia-none. Appointments by Liberal Party, 5 Appointments by Liberal Country League, 1 Appointments by Australian Labor Party, 3 Table 2 WOMEN WHO HAVE MADE MINISTERIAL POSITIONS IN AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTS Commonwealth of Australia Lyons, Dame Enid Muriel, gbe. uap-Lib. Vice-President of the Executive Council 19.12.1949-7.3.1951 Rankin, Dame Annabelle Jane Mary, dbe. Lib. Minister of Housing 26.1.1966-22.3.1971 Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Georgina Constance. Lib. Minister of Education Minister of Social Security Minister of Finance Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters 12.11.1975-22.12.1975 22.12.1975-3.11.1980 3.11.1980-11.3.1983 22.12.1975-23.6.1976 Ryan, Susan Maree. alp.... Minister for Education and Youth Affairs Minister for Education Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women 11.3.1983-13.12.1984 13.12.1984-Present 11.3.1983-Present New South Wales Crosio, Janice. alp.... Minister for Natural Resources Minister for Local Government Minister for Water Resources 5.4.1984-5.2.1986 5.2.1986-Present 4.7.1986-Present Grusovin, Deidre. alp.... Minister for Consumer Affairs Assistant Minister for Health 4.7.1986-Present 4.7.1986-Present Victoria Toner, Pauline. alp.... Minister for Community Welfare Services 7.4.1982-14.3.1985 Hogg, Caroline. alp.... Minister for Community Services 14.3.1985-Present Kirner, Joan. alp.... Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands 14.3.1985-Present Queensland Chapman, Yvonne Ann. np.... Minister for Welfare Services, Youth and Ethnic Affairs 6.2.1986-Present South Australia Steele, Joyce. Lib.... Minister of Education Minister of Social Welfare Minister of Aboriginal Affairs Minister of Housing 17.4.1968-2.3.1970 2.3.1970-2.6.1970 2.3.1970-2.6.1970 2.3.1970-2.6.1970 Adamson, Jennifer (now Cashmore). Lib.... Minister of Health Minister of Tourism 18.9.1979-10.11.1982 18.9.1979-10.11.1982 Weise, Barbara. alp.... Minister of Tourism Minister of Local Government Minister of Youth Affairs Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts 16.7.1985-Present 16.7.1985-Present 16.7.1985-Present 18.12.1985-Present Western Australia Cardell-Oliver, Dame (Annie) Florence. Lib. Minister without portfolio Honorary Minister for Supply and Shipping Minister for Supply and Shipping Minister for Health 1.4.1947-5.1.1948 5.1.1948-7.10.1949 7.10.1949-23.2.1953 7.10.1949-23.2.1953 Craig, (Margaret) June. Lib.... Minister for Lands and Forests Minister for Local Government Minister for Urban Development and Town Planning 10.3.1977-25.8.1978 25.8.1978-25.1.1982 25.8.1978-25.1.1982 Hallahan, (Elsie) Kay. alp.... Minister for Community Services; the Family; Youth; the Aged Minister Assisting the Minister for Women's Interests; Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Minister Assisting the Minister for Women's Interests 25.2.1986-Present 25.2.1986-16.3.1987 16.3.1987-Present Beggs, Pamela Anne. alp.... Minister for Tourism; Racing and Gaming 25.2.1986-Present Tasmania James, Gillian Hilma. alp.... Minister for Public Health Minister for Public and Mental Health Minister for Consumer Affairs Minister for Administrative Services 29.8.1980-7.7.1981 7.7.1981-26.5.1982 29.8.1980-26.5.1982 29.8.1980-26.5.1982 Northern Territory Padgham-Purich, Noel. clp.... Minister for Housing and Conservation 13.12.1983-16.10.1984 Number of Female Ministers Appointed by UAP, Liberal Party, National Party and Country Liberal Party: 9. Numbers of Female Ministers Appointed by Australian Labor Party: 10. Table 3 LIST OF WOMEN IN STATE AND FEDERAL PARLIAMENTS SINCE 1901 Name Party Date Commonwealth Government House of Representatives Dame Enid Lyons ... UAP 1943-51 Doris Blackburn ... Ind. Lab 1946-49 Kay Brownbill ... Lib 1966-69 Joan Child ... ALP 1974-75, 1980- Elaine Darling ... ALP 1980 Roslyn Kelly ... ALP 1980 Jeanette McHugh ... ALP 1983 Helen Mayer ... ALP 1983 Wendy Fatin ... ALP 1983 Carolyn Jakobsen ... ALP Kathryn Sullivan Lib Senate Dame Dorothy Tangney ... ALP 1943-68 Dame Annabelle Rankin ... Lib 1947-71 Agnes Robertson ... Lib (N.P. from 1955) 1950-62 Dame Ivy Wedgwood Lib 1950-71 Dame Nancy Buttfield Lib 1955-65 Marie Breen ALP 1962-68 Margaret Guilfoyle ... Lib 1970 Jean Melzer ... ALP 1974-81 Kathryn Martin ... Lib 1974 Ruth Coleman ... ALP 1974 Susan Ryan ... ALP 1975 Shirley Walters ... Lib 1975 Janine Haines ... AD 1977-78, 1980- Jean Hearn ... ALP 1980 Florence Bjelke-Petersen ... NP 1980 Patricia Giles ... ALP 1980 Margaret Reid ... Lib 1981 Olive Zakharov ... ALP 1983 Margaret Reynolds ... ALP 1983 Rosemary Crowley ... ALP 1983 Susan Knowles ... Lib Jocelyn Newman ... Lib Janet Powell ... AD Josephine Vallentine ... Ind Amanda Vanstone ... Lib Suzanne West ... ALP NEW SOUTH WALES Legislative Assembly Millicent Stanley ... Nationalist 1925-27 Mary Quirk ... ALP 1939-50 Lillian Fowler ... ALP 1944-50 Mary Meillon ... Lib 1973-86 Rosemary Foot ... Lib 1978 Janice Crosio ... ALP Wendy Machin ... NP Legislative Council Ellen Webster... ALP 1931-34 Catherine Green... ALP 1931-32 Gertrude Melville... ALP 1952-59 Edna Roper... ALP 1957-78 Anne Press... ALP, Ind, Lib. 1959-70 Amelia Rygate... ALP 1961-78 Mabel Furley... Lib 1962-75 Evelyn Barron... ALP 1964-75 Margaret Davis... Lib 1967-78 Kathleen Anderson... ALP 1973-80 Florence Lloyd... Lib 1973-81 Delcia Kite... ALP 1976 Virginia Chadwick... Lib 1978 Marie Fisher... ALP 1980 Deidre Grusovin... ALP 1980 Dorothy Isaksen... ALP 1980 Franca Arena... ALP Marie Bignald... Ind Beryl Evans... Lib Judith Jakins... NP Elizabeth Kirkby... AD Elizabeth Symonds... ALP Judith Walker... ALP QUEENSLAND Legislative Assembly Irene Longman... Nationalist 1929-32 Ellen Jordan... ALP 1966-74 Rosemary Kyburz... Lib 1974 Beryce Nelson... Lib 1980 Yvonne Chapman... NP Teresa Harvey... NP Diane McCauley... NP Anne Warner... ALP Victoria Kippen... NP SOUTH AUSTRALIA Legislative Assembly Joyce Steele... Lib 1959-73 Jennifer Adamson... Lib 1977 June Appleby... ALP 1982 Susan Lenehan... ALP 1982 Diance Gayler... ALP Molly Burne... ALP Legislative Council Jessie Cooper... Lib 1959-79 Judith Anne Levy... ALP 1975 Barbara Wiese... ALP 1979 Diana Laidlaw... Lib 1982 Carolyn Pickles... ALP VICTORIA Legislative Assembly Lady Milly Peacock... UAP 1933-35 Ivy Weber... Ind. 1937-43 Fanny Brownbill... ALP 1938-48 Dorothy Goble... Lib. 1967-76 Joan Heywood Chambers... Lib. 1979 Jeanette Patrick... Lib. 1980 Pauline Toner... ALP 1980 Prudence Sibree... Lib. 1981 Valerie Callister... ALP 1981 Beth Gleeson... ALP Jane Hill... ALP Carolyn Hirsh... ALP Margaret Ray... ALP Kay Setches... ALP Jan Wilson... ALP Legislative Council Gracia Baylor... Lib. 1981 Joan Coxsedge... ALP 1979 Judith Dixon... ALP 1982 Caroline Hogg... ALP 1982 Joan Kirner... ALP 1982 Maureen Lyster... ALP Jean McLean... ALP Rosemary Varty... Lib. TASMANIA House of Assembly Dame Mabel Miller... Lib. 1955-64 Amelia Best... Lib. 1955-59 Lynda Heaven... ALP 1962-64 Gillian James... ALP 1977 Mary Willey... ALP 1978-81 Fran Bladel... ALP Judy Jackson... ALP Legislative Council Margaret McIntyre... Ind. 1948 Lucy Margaret Grounds... Ind. 1951-57 Phyllis Benjamin... ALP 1952-75 Kathleen Venn... Ind. WESTERN AUSTRALIA Legislative Assembly Edith Cowan... Nationalist 1921-24 May Holman... ALP 1925-39 Dame Annie Cardell-Oliver... Lib. 1936-56 Margaret June Craig... Lib. 1980-83 Pam Beggs... ALP 1983 Pam Buchanan... ALP 1983 Yvonne Henderson... ALP 1983 Jackie Watkins... ALP 1983 Carmen Lawrence... ALP Judyth Watson... ALP Legislative Council Ruby Hutchison... ALP 1954-71 Lyla Elliott... ALP 1971 Margaret McAleer... Lib. 1974 Winifred Piesse... NP 1977-83 Grace Vaughan... ALP 1974-80 Kay Hallahan... ALP 1983 Beryl Jones... ALP NORTHERN TERRITORY Cecilia Padgham-Purich... CLP Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The first of these tables relates to judicial appointments. The myth that the Labor Party has been the staunch promoter of women arises from the grave mistake of believing that those who make the most noise about an issue are the people who are doing the most about it. The facts are that non-Labor parties of Australia have treated women every bit as equally as has the Australian Labor Party. The difference is that where the Labor Party likes to run around the country shouting that it has appointed a woman, as if that fact in itself has some inherent merit, the conservative parties have treated the sex of appointees as largely irrelevant, and I am very glad that they have. Contrary to the utterances of the Labor Party, the conservative parties judge women on their merits. We are just as tough on women-- Senator Robertson —Ha! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We are just as tough on women as we are on men and I know that conservative women would not wish it to be any other way. In contrast to the Australian Labor Party, we do not provide women with special privileges. Sadly, this commendable refusal to give special regard and special publicity to sex has often mistakenly been taken to indicate some prejudice against women in the conservative ranks. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. From the tables that I have incorporated it can be seen that the conservative parties around Australia have appointed six female judges to our most senior courts while the Australian Labor Party has appointed three. The first woman judge appointed to a superior court was Dame Roma Mitchell, who was appointed by the Country Liberal League of Sir Thomas Playford in 1965-18 years before the first ALP appointment to a high judicial office. I turn to the second table, which shows ministerial appointments throughout the parliaments of Australia. The Australian Labor Party has appointed 10 female Ministers in the Commonwealth Parliament and State parliaments while the conservative parties have appointed nine. The first female Minister to be appointed was appointed in my State of Western Australia, being Dame Florence Cardell-Oliver, way back in 1947, when, I suspect, Senator Ryan was still at school. This was well before the introduction of affirmative action. It was well before the Labor Party decided that it would pamper feminist groups with special privileges for women. The final table is a list of the women who have been members of the State or Commonwealth parliaments. I make the point that in the States of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia conservative women entered parliament before women from the ALP were elected. In the Commonwealth a conservative, Dame Enid Lyons, and Dame Dorothy Tangney from the ALP were elected in the same year, 1943. I also mention that the first and only Aboriginal to enter the Federal Parliament was Senator Neville Bonner of the Liberal Party from Queensland. I do not wish to make too much of these points lest I defeat my own argument by making it seem that the conservative parties have made some special or particular point of electing women for no better reason than that they were women. I would simply like to dispel the oft-repeated claptrap by the ALP that it has some special affinity with the cause of equal opportunity for women. It has no such damned thing. Its desire to be connected with legislation such as is before the Senate today is nothing more than a disgraceful and cynical attempt to associate itself with Australian women in the hope that it may attract votes by doing so. This is far from the real picture. If honourable senators really want to see people who believe that women ought to be in the home whether they like it or not, I suggest they speak to some of the right-wing elements of the Australian Labor Party, who on social issues are amongst the most intransigent people in Australia. Their simple philosophy is `treat them mean and keep them keen'. We on this side of the chamber recognise that many women want to work and should be able to do so if they have the ability for the job-that is it, with no other reasons and no special privileges. We also realise that many women want to remain in the home and perform what is the most responsible job given to any person in the community, man or woman, that is, raising young children as responsible Australians. Legislation such as this, which relies on counting numbers so that authorities can `stock up' on women, ought to be rejected as a slur on women. It states that they cannot succeed without special help. That is a danger to women because it casts doubts over their claims to the positions that they have attained. This legislation will be discriminatory in its practical effect and is exactly counter to the principle of appointment without regard to race and gender contained in anti-discrimination legislation. It is regrettable that the Government feels that only by legislation can it provide equality. I am sure that education is the only way. Of course, women need no artificial crutch to survive in the modern world. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(12.24) —Today we are debating the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. At the commencement of my speech I wish to say that I support the need for equal employment opportunity programs. That is obviously the case. I supported the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill last year. I was not in this chamber in 1984 and so had no opportunity to support or otherwise the Public Service Reform Bill of 1984. But, as I have said, I commence by reaffirming the fact that I support-admittedly, unlike some of my colleagues-the need for equal employment opportunity programs. It is alleged that this Bill is the last of a package of three Bills dealing with equal employment opportunity. The first was the Public Service Reform Bill of 1984 and in particular section 22b. The second was the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill of 1986. And the third is this Bill, the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill. Claims have been made, as a consequence of the response of the Liberal Party of Australia to this third Bill, that we have done a number of things. The first claim that has been made is that we have walked away from the principle of equal opportunity so deeply enshrined in our Federal and State platforms. The second allegation that has been made is that we have changed our views from those that we held last year, 1986, and that we no longer support the things that we supported in the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill. The third claim is that we are rejecting in this instance specific wording that we found acceptable in 1984. I reject each of those allegations. Before dealing with other matters relating to this Bill, I will deal with each of those three allegations. The first one is: Have we walked away from supporting equal opportunity programs? No. What we have said is that, given certain amendments to the Bill, we will support it. The amendments that we are seeking do not destroy the intention or force of the Bill. We have said that we believe the amendments-I am sure the Government knows this is so-would leave the Bill as an equal opportunity Bill of the same force and intention as the 1986 Bill, and so we would support it. I do not see how on that basis it can be said that we have walked away from supporting equal opportunity programs. Senator Teague made that point earlier today. He pointed out, in explaining why he will vote for this Bill, that he believes the differences between our amendments and what the Government is proposing are so small that he has to support the Bill whether the amendments are passed or not. What I am saying is that if that is the case, if the difference is so small, how can the Government and any commentator say that we have walked away from supporting equal opportunity programs? The second allegation is that we have changed our view from that which we held in 1986. The allegation is that we are now seeking to use the words that were used in 1986. We want put into this 1987 legislation the words relating to the contents of the program used in the 1986 Bill. Admittedly, we have changed an in-house procedural tactic. We have said that we will not vote for the Bill until we get those changes. Last time we said that if we could not have the amendments we would go along with the Bill. I am not sure whether you, Mr Acting Deputy President, were here on the night that the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, who is now at the table, had the sitting of the Parliament prolonged to get the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill through. At that time people were having their dinner and had to come into the chamber because of quorum bells and all that sort of thing. On that night we saw a number of things. In particular, we saw the Australian Democrats-all of them-vote with the Government against the Democrats' own amendments out of expediency. So when today I heard Democrats speakers referring to the position of my Party as expedient, it just about made me want to be sick. They were expedient then and said that the Bill was desperately needed. I have my suspicions as to why the Bill was desperately needed. I think that someone had secretly been given the job and the Government needed the Bill to be passed so that the person could be paid. Senator Ryan —That is outrageous. Senator VANSTONE —The Minister says that that is an outrageous allegation. If the hub of some complaints is that our disagreement is so small that it is almost the same as what the Government is asking for, why does not the Government accept our amendments? It could then present to Australia an equal employment opportunity Bill supported by all parties. If it wanted a bipartisan approach, if it did not want to create difficulties, if it did not want to obtain publicity for itself and try to paint us as a party that has walked away from equal opportunity, surely that is what it would do. Senator Hill made that point this morning when he said that the Government should adopt our amendments and demonstrate to all Australians the bipartisan support in this chamber for equal opportunity programs. I repeat that the obvious reason why the Government is not accepting our amendments is that it is a political opportunity for it to create the impression that it is in favour of equal opportunity programs and we are against them. So much for the bipartisan approach of the Australian Labor Party; so much for its desire to have the maximum positive impact with this legislation. Some people have said that our complaints about the Bill are just words, with no real substance to them. I heard the term `nitpicking' used this morning to describe complaints that we might want to make. Let us therefore consider the comments of the Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau reporting to the Public Service Board in its first newsletter, called Equal Times, issue No. 1 of March 1987. It states: There seems to be, however, something about the word `targets' that continues to arouse suspicion, despite repeated and unequivocal emphasis of this policy. People seem to have much less trouble with the words `performance indicators' so in the future, that is the terminology we will be using. I do not find anything wrong with the Bureau saying that, as some people have problems with some terminology, it will work in a bipartisan manner to find words with which people will be happy. Surely the object of each of the three pieces of legislation is to achieve equal opportunity in the work place-not only for women but, in respect of two of the Bills, for other designated groups. Surely that is the aim of the Government. If the Government's own Bureau is bright enough to recognise the need for consultation to obtain agreement on the words being used, surely the Government should be happy to accept that some honourable senators on our side have serious problems with the words used in this Bill. We do not have those problems with the words used in the 1986 legislation, so why not accept them? It is inexplicable for a party that says that it has a bipartisan approach to take the attitude that the Australian Labor Party is taking today. I have listened carefully, as have many others, to the speeches made thus far on this Bill. I do not want to single out any particular one, but some were so pious and sanctimonious that the immediate reaction on hearing them was simply to turn off the sound. The attitude of some speakers in this debate, in my view, degrades the status of the chamber. A view was put that if we have any difficulty with the interpretation or the understanding of some words, we are no longer principled or bipartisan. Some speakers on this side of the Chamber have taken that pious and sanctimonious approach simply because we have a different interpretation or understanding of a few words. Another view that has been put is that, if we do not support the Bill as it is, we are anti-equal opportunity programs and anti-women; that we are simply being expedient. What a load of drivel. With the record of my Party in respect of women, on the Public Service Reform Act and on the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act, how can that be said? It is hardly helping my case or hardly expedient for me-as a female in the south of Australia, where the Liberal Party women's council and women's network have passed resolutions in favour of the Bill-to stay with my Party and vote against the Bill unless we obtain our amendments. The expedient thing would be to say to myself: `It's getting a bit hot in the kitchen, a bit of pressure is coming from my State, so I will give away my concerns about the Bill and go along with what some people, especially women, in the organisation of my party, are saying'. Senator Robertson —That shows how sure you are of preselection. Senator VANSTONE —The Government Whip says that my view may be affected by how sure I am of my preselection. I remind him, in case he does not know, that I am No. 3 on the Senate ticket. I am on the next ticket to come up, and I am on it with Senator Teague, who indicated this morning that he will vote for the Bill. I am unsure of Senator Jessop's intentions. Therefore, there is no sure road to my preselection. I am on the next ticket coming up, and I will quite happily defend my stand on this Bill to my council, my women's council and my women's network. So much for the case of expediency. Some women in my State-and, for that matter, some of my colleagues-have suggested that it would be politically expedient to vote for this Bill, that it would look good, and that when we get into government we can then fix the problems resulting from the legislation. Well, this country is littered with legislation-not just from the Federal Parliament but from the State parliaments as well-which was passed in an imperfect form for expediency. People could not be bothered nitpicking, so when the legislation becomes operative we find faults in it. I am happy to be a nitpicker and to pursue my concerns about this Bill. I hardly think that that can be claimed to be an expedient position for me to take. One of the points that has been consistently made by some speakers in this debate is that this is the third Bill-that is true-in a planned program. I have some concerns about that. Sure, it is the third Bill dealing with equal opportunity, primarily for women, but for other designated groups as well. Sure, in each of the Bills we will find many clauses and combinations of words that are the same; but, equally, we will find many that are different. I want to deal with some of those differences, simply to point out that the fact that three Bills deal with the same principle does not mean that the contents of each will be the same or that we need to support each without concerning ourselves with the differences. Firstly, the Public Service Reform Act deals with government departments and some statutory authorities. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act deals with private enterprise and some educational institutions. This Bill deals with the remaining statutory authorities. It is really all a bit of a mess. Why should the Commonwealth's arms be all over the place? Why should some statutory authorities be in one piece of legislation and others have a separate piece of legislation for themselves? Why should universities and places of tertiary education, which are primarily federally funded, have a different load put on them than is put on statutory authorities? After all, it is all Commonwealth money. What is the explanation for that? I venture to say that if the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) were asked at the end of the debate to give a list of the authorities that will be affected under one piece of legislation and a list that will be affected under the other-a conclusive and complete list-there might be some difficulty in it. One might also query whether what I was told last week is true: That is, did the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations write to all the authorities it knows of which are not covered under the Public Service Reform Act and ask them how they would like to be dealt with? Did nearly all of those authorities, except for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in particular, write back and say that they would not like to be dealt with under the Public Service Reform Act as a consequence of some amendments but that they would like a separate piece of legislation? Will they all choose to report to the Minister rather than to a board? One might ask: Why give some people a choice and not others? In this Bill the authorities that are being dealt with have a choice. They can make their reports to the Minister or to a board. But the authorities under the Public Service Reform Act do not have such a choice. Government members have been so busy trying to bucket the Liberal Party for its stand on this Bill that none of them have dealt with substantive matters of detail to explain to us why there is a choice in one piece of legislation and not in the other. I do not think that is consistent. We have heard ad nauseam from some honourable senators about the merit protection clause. I remind honourable senators that in the first piece of legislation the manner in which merit is protected is in no way similar to the manner in which it is protected in the second and third pieces of legislation. For honourable senators who may not be aware of it, merit is dealt with in section 33 (1) (b) of the Public Service Reform Act as follows: (b) the appointment is made on the basis of an assessment of the relative suitability of the applicants for the appointment, having regard to- (i) the nature of the duties to be performed by the person appointed; and (ii) the abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes of each applicant that are relevant to the performance of those duties. That is the provision in the first piece of legislation which protects, in substance anyway, merit. The other two pieces of legislation have a different merit protection provision. The Equal Employhment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill states: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. That is substantially different from the first merit protection provision. I do not know why Public Service departments and some statutory authorities should have a different merit protection clause from private enterprise and the remaining statutory authorities. No one has offered an explanation to me. It appears to me to be inconsistent-not to the extent of sloppy drafting but just inconsistency on the part of the Government. Why, when one goes through the three pieces of legislation, does one find definitions in one or two of the three pieces of legislation and not in the other? It is because there is an inconsistent approach to all of these matters. I put it to the chamber that, whilst these pieces of legislation deal with the same thing, they do not deal with it in the same way. A moment ago I mentioned the merit protection clause. As I said, much has been made of the fact that both the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act and this Bill have the same merit protection provision. Some speakers in this debate have already pointed out that this clause is what is termed a `permissive' clause in that it says, `Nothing in this Act requires you to deal with employment matters other than on the basis of merit' but it does not go on to say `nothing will stop you dealing with employment matters other than on the basis of merit'. It could have been done. In the Public Service Reform Act there is a restrictive provision relating to patronage. There is a specific exclusion of the possibility of appointments being made on the basis of patronage. Why is there not a clause in this Bill saying that no appointment will be made other than on the basis of merit? Given that the Government says that merit is to be protected at all costs, there should be such a clause. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to a report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald that Australian Federal Police are interviewing officials of the Australian Bureau of Statistics with access to balance of payments data. I ask: Can the Minister confirm that a police investigation is under way into the alleged leaking of the March quarter current account figure, which came in at a much lower level than had been generally expected? Is the Government aware of a dramatic drop in the bond market in the half hour before the official release of the trade figures? Whilst the facts of this matter are apparently still under investigation, is the Government concerned about the implications of this most recent allegation and others concerning early access to market sensitive information? I further ask: Does the Minister agree that considerable personal gain could be involved if individuals have early access to this sort of market sensitive information? Is the Minister aware that Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio broadcast the 10 per cent figure from the first ever Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of on-costs on Wednesday night and yesterday morning in advance of the release, at 11.30 a.m. yesterday, which seems to be another example of an illicit release of information? I ask: What steps have been taken or could be taken to strengthen security in the Bureau? Has any action been taken against any individual as a result of any previous allegations of leaks? Senator WALSH —I did glance briefly at the report in the Sydney Morning Herald and I also heard about this on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program this morning. But I have no information as to whether it is even correct that Federal Police are investigating the matter, and I gather from Senator Tate that he has no information either. But, of course, that will be followed up. I thought that the report referred to the March month current account deficit or trade figures, and I think Senator Chaney said the March quarter. Senator Chaney —I think you are right; I am sorry. It would be both figures; but you are correct. Senator WALSH —Yes, it would be both. Regarding the Australian Bureau of Statistics finding of 10 per cent on-costs, lest there be some misunderstanding about that figure, it should be noted that that Australian Bureau of Statistics 10 per cent was an attempt to measure a limited range of on-costs that included payroll tax, superannuation, I think, and workers compensation costs, and therefore is not comparable with the 29 per cent figure which the Confederation of Australian Industry produced a little earlier, although that component of the CAI figure is consistent with the Australian Bureau of Statistics finding. But I was not aware of the fact, if it is a fact, that that figure was broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation before the official release. I will refer the questions to the Treasurer and I think Senator Tate will probably make some investigation as well of the Federal Police. Senator ROBERT RAY —I address my question to the Special Minister of State. I ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to an article in yesterday's Daily Mirror in which, in relation to the Premier of Queensland, it was stated: . . . the Federal Electoral Legislation Amendment Act requiring parties to disclose the organisations which have donated had been made to stop him getting to the top in Canberra Is it a fact that most of these amendments were passed by the national Parliament in November 1983, long before the Queensland Premier's ambitions had surfaced? Is it possible that the then Acting Special Minister of State, Mr Beazley, anticipated such a move and legislated to entrap the Queensland Premier some four years later? Is the Minister also aware that the Queensland Premier described the legislation as `a devilish piece of legislation aimed at me'? To what extent is such legislation invalidated if in fact it has been influenced by Satan? Senator TATE —I did glance at an article which included the statement attributed to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, which Senator Robert Ray has outlined to the Senate. I must say that it is entirely in harmony with what we can expect and have grown accustomed to hearing from the Queensland National Party, the New Nationals as they are now called, in the push to get Joh to Canberra. We have already in this chamber had cause to note Sir Robert Sparkes indicating that if the Nationals were ever in a position to do so, they would repeal those parts of the electoral legislation which have received the assent of this Parliament, which require the disclosure of donations to political parties. In doing so, of course, it only reinforces what we know, that really the Nationals have a total disdain for the proprieties which ought to be observed in any democracy, and particularly when electors seek to know who may be in a position unduly to influence those who are elected to government. Insofar as that influence may be purchased by large donations, then the cloak of anonymity I think needs to be pulled aside so that the electors and citizens of Australia can properly judge the activities of government, as I say, which may be open to influence or at least to the charge of influence by those who have made such donations. This Parliament has already, as Senator Ray's question indicates, put in place in 1983 certain disclosure provisions which the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform unanimously considered to be somewhat inadequate. In a Bill that will be debated in this place, next week, if I may anticipate slightly, it is intended to tighten up those provisions to ensure that third parties who make donations to political organisations for electoral campaigns, have to disclose those donations. As I say, the veil of anonymity can be torn asunder, put to one side, and the electors can have exposed those who may wish to purchase influence over political parties. As to the question of whether satanic influence may invalidate legislation, I think that is probably an unparliamentary suggestion in that obviously we do not in this chamber act in accordance with devilish influences. If I may say so, it is true that even though we have had the help of Senator Robert Ray and other honourable senators who were on that Committee to check the draft, the legislation is devilishly, diabolically complex to read and it would take somebody with some knowledge or perhaps diabolical ways of thought really to understand it, but I guess that is what Queen's counsellors are paid for. Whether it comes to a contest in the courts over that legislation to require the disclosure which the electorate and our democracy demands to get Sir Joh to reveal the sources of funding for his campaign, may I also emphasise that in the end this chamber and this Parliament have the plenary power through their committees to call for papers and for people and to discover whether, quite apart from legislation, the system of election to these democratically elected chambers is being perverted by the sorts of anonymous activities which Sir Joh appears to want to foster. Senator ARCHER —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. I ask: Is it a fact that the Australian Federal Police conducted an investigation into allegations that diplomatic staff in the Australian Embassy in Jakarta were involved in the illegal sale of duty free vehicles? Is it a fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions advised that a prima facie case existed and prosecution should be proceeded with? Have such prosecutions taken place and, if not, what is the current position? Senator TATE —I do not have an immediate answer insofar as any answer I could give would not reveal any operational details. Senator Archer's question seems to put the matter in the past tense and suggest that any investigation and assembly of evidence has been forwarded to the DPP. I will attempt to give an answer by the end of Question Time. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Convention for the Protection and Development of Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region come into force and is Australia a signatory to that Convention? Further, is the Australian Government satisfied that France is respecting Article 12 of the Treaty referring to pollution resulting from nuclear tests? Senator GARETH EVANS —The situation is that the Convention has not come into force and will not do so until 10 parties have ratified it. Eight countries have signed the Convention so far and a number of other countries will examine the question of signature in accordance with their normal constitutional procedures. Australia is not yet a signatory to the Convention. France has signed it and the two protocols but has not ratified it. As to the question of French compliance with Article 12 of the Convention, in 1983 scientists from Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea visited the Mururoa test site at the invitation of the French Government to investigate and report on possible radioactive contamination of the environment at and around Mururoa and the consequences of any contamination. The report of that team, which is known as the Atkinson report, was critical of some aspects of the French testing program, but overall found that there was no immediate cause for alarm. The Atkinson report expressed some concern about the possible long term consequences of continued testing, particularly radioactive groundwater leakage into the Mururoa Atoll lagoon in the next 500 to 1,000 years. France claims that this conclusion is based on a premise that presumes five times the level of testing that has actually occurred over the past 10 years. Senator SANDERS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. What have been the reasons for the Government's failure to proclaim the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act? What progress has been made towards appointing the Commission of Inquiry and imposing the moratorium on logging in the potential qualifying areas designated in the Act? Senator RYAN —In the absence of Tasmania's taking up of the Government's offer to settle the issue sensibly between us, our Government is implementing the provisions of the Act as a matter of priority. The Act now has royal assent. Appointments and proclamations of the Act are being pursued quickly so that the inquiry can proceed and an announcement will be made in due course. Senator ELSTOB —My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to the possible loss of our $300m export trade with Iran as a result of a derisive skit on that country's Government shown on Australian Broadcasting Corporation television. Is the Minister satisfied that smug and gross caricatures of the governments of our trading partners represent responsible programming on the part of our national broadcaster? Does the Minister believe that there is a need for the media to formulate regulations built upon sensitivity to the particular histories and circumstances of other countries not nearly as trouble-free as our own? Senator GARETH EVANS —I think honourable senators will be aware enough of the facts following the recent satirical skit on the ABC program The Dingo Principle not to require me to spell them out. In response to the action of the Iranian Government in expelling the two members of the Australian Embassy, the Government has reiterated its support for the important principles of freedom of expression and freedom of the Press. We have also stressed the political independence of the ABC. It is, of course, a matter of deep regret that an essentially inconsequential satirical program should have been taken so seriously by the Iranian authorities. We have made it clear to Iran that Australia has a long tradition of political satire which, as my colleagues in this chamber will know, has spared very few public figures. Similar points were made by the ABC Managing Director, David Hill, in his reaction to the actions of the Iranian Government when he said that the ABC does not deliberately set out to offend, that satire and comedy are part of our culture and, again, that few people in Australian public life escape satirical comment at some stage or another. The Managing Director did, however, express concern that the ABC has offended Iranians and upset Australian-Iranian relations while at the same time saying that the ABC cannot accept the abandonment of a long held tradition. As to the last part of Senator Elstob's question, I would certainly be wary, on either Mr Hayden's behalf or my own, of getting into the area of regulation of the media by government. Senator Elstob —I did not say that. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that, but I am talking about self-regulation. Similar questions tend to arise. One of the consequences of the unfettered freedom of the Press as it exists in this country is that within the limits of the law it is for the media itself to take into account the sensitivities of others when deciding what kinds of stories to run. This is an area in which the Government firmly believes that it would be wrong to seek to become involved, even to the extent of encouraging specific kinds of self-regulation such as Senator Elstob proposes. Despite the embarrassments that arise from time to time, the reality is that programming issues are and must remain entirely matters for the Corporation. Finally, it is the Government's hope that we will see soon a return to a constructive and co-operative relationship with Iran, based on mutual respect for our two very different systems of government and social values. Senator BROWNHILL —I direct my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I draw his attention to two responses to questions on notice that he has provided me on the subject of a bird smuggling attempt which was foiled at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport last September. The Minister may be aware that the two people detained are both prominent in the agricultural industry in Sydney and that their involvement in such activities has upset and angered other aviculturists. Given that the matter is serious, and that the two were caught in the act, why has the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service not completed its inquiries and why has the Director of Public Prosecutions not yet acted? Is the Minister aware that there is very great concern within the avicultural industry that the prosecutions will not proceed, and if in fact they do not proceed that it will provide encouragement for others to attempt to continue their illegal import and export of exotic birds? Senator BUTTON —I have had a very bad week. On Monday I learnt that Senator Messner would be the Opposition spokesman on industry and commerce. On Thursday I learnt that Senator Boswell would be the National Party spokesman on industry and commerce. I saw myself being mesmerised by Messner and browbeaten by Boswell, but I am very pleased that Senator Brownhill has been the first National Party senator to ask me a question on the topic of bird smuggling. Although I have given the honourable senator two answers to questions on notice, I am not familiar with the details on what is currently taking place. I appreciate the concern which has been expressed by others who see themselves as being adversely affected by the delays, if any, in the processing of this matter. I will try to get an answer as quickly as possible and give it to the honourable senator in the Senate if I can. Senator JONES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the plight of unemployed youth in Queensland as highlighted by the latest figures produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? Is the Minister aware that the youth unemployment rate for 15- to -19-year old men and women in Queensland in March 1987 was 27.9 per cent, the highest for any mainland State? Do the figures show the Australian average of 23.4 per cent is being forced up by the inept efforts of the Bjelke-Petersen Government? Further, is it a fact that in the year to 1986 no less than 3,400 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 fled Queensland in a bid to find jobs interstate? Is it also a fact that Queensland now accounts for 19.7 per cent of unemployment, as at March 1987? Senator WALSH —It is a fact that something like 3,400 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 fled from Queensland last year. They voted with their feet and decided to escape the Bjelke-Petersen regime. Whether that was entirely due to the fact that the Bjelke-Petersen regime has, with the exception of Tasmania, the highest rate of youth unemployment of any State or whether they were also fleeing from other unsavoury aspects of the Bjelke-Petersen regime is a matter for judgment, but they certainly did flee. In March 1983, when this Government was first elected, the unemployment rate for youth, defined as 15- to 19-year-olds who were looking for full time work, was 26.9 per cent. That has fallen very considerably-though not as much as we would have liked it to have fallen-to 23.4 per cent. During the same period, however, the unemployment rate for the same group in Queensland went from 21.2 per cent to 27.9 per cent-an increase of almost 7 percentage points in the unemployment rate for that group of young people in Queensland. At present, only Tasmania has a higher rate of youth unemployment than Queensland. Let me run quickly through the rates for the States: From March 1983 to March 1987-in other words, the period during which this Government has been in office-in New South Wales the youth unemployment rate fell from almost 29 per cent to 24 per cent; in Victoria, from just over 28 per cent to 19 1/2 per cent; in South Australia, from just over 30 per cent to just over 23 per cent; and, in Western Australia, from just over 23 per cent to 21.7 per cent. However, in Queensland the figure jumped from 21.2 per cent to 27.9 per cent and in Tasmania it jumped from 26.4 per cent to 29.1 per cent. I think that everybody will agree that it is more than a coincidence that in all the Labor government States there were moderate to very large reductions in the unemployment rate for young people and, in the two non-Labor government States, there was a moderate increase in the rate, in the case of Tasmania, and a huge increase in Queensland under the Petersen regime. Senator KILGARIFF —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister for Resources and Energy may have an interest in it. Is the Minister aware that the Northern Territory Chamber of Mines has stated that more than 400,000 square kilometres of the Northern Territory has been declared Aboriginal land and that another 200,000 square kilometres is under claim by Aboriginal interests-in all, 46 per cent of the Northern Territory land mass? Is it also a fact that, if a mining exploration licence is granted on unalienated land, up to the point where an Aboriginal land commissioner commences hearing a claim over that land and that Aboriginal claim is successful, an application for a mining lease after the claim is resolved will be subject to the full impact of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the Press release to which Senator Kilgariff referred and the statistics in that. Although I have not had an opportunity to check them out in detail, by and large they conform to my understanding of the situation. The Government has made it clear on a number of occasions that it regards it as necessary to break the log-jam in relation to getting access by mining companies to Aboriginal land for exploration and, possibly later, development purposes. The log-jam has not proved to be in either the national interest or, clearly, that of the Aboriginal people themselves, or at least those of them who do want some kind of exploration and development activity to occur. It is the Government's concern that there should remain for those traditional owners who do not want any form of intrusion into their traditional lands an opportunity to veto any such activity without subsequent harassment. Overall, the Government's policy position on this was pretty well explained in a detailed statement that was made by me and Mr Holding in March last year. The difficulty of translating that into legislative action has been acute. Senator Durack —Why? What is the problem? Senator GARETH EVANS —Because of the variety of complex and sensitive issues that still remain to be resolved. I hope that it will be possible, in the reasonably near future, to bring that rather long-standing exercise to fruition. However, it is not a matter for congratulation of anyone concerned that there has been so little activity for such a long period. I repeat: I speak very much from the perspective of Aboriginal interests as well as those of the mining industry and the national interest. Senator KILGARIFF —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister comment on the second part of my question? If a mining company takes out a licence in good faith, carries out certain works and expends money, and a claim commences and is successful, would it be subject to the full impact of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not wish to add anything to what I have said previously. That is one of the numerous aspects of the current administration of the 1976 law that require some close attention. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the survey of major labour costs published yesterday and to the Minister's answer to a question by Senator Chaney. What light do the figures in the survey shed on the level in this country of payroll taxation, which is the dominant form of State government taxation in Australia, compared with other developed industrialised countries? Is it possible that payroll tax is not borne fully by employers but is simply passed on to consumers? Senator WALSH —It is possible that payroll tax would not be borne fully by employers but would be passed on to consumers. I am almost certain that that would happen to some extent, as almost any corporate tax, at least in part, gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. The extent to which that happens is very much a matter for judgment or even conjecture. I mentioned earlier in Question Time that the survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of on-costs measured only three major on-costs of payroll tax, workers compensation and employer superannuation costs, which makes the figure not strictly comparable to either the Confederation of Australian Industry figure of 29.3 per cent, which embraced a much more comprehensive set of wage on-costs, or the 15-country Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 35 per cent, which I think was roughly comparable to the CAI definition of on-costs. However, at this stage I am not quite certain of that either. There are problems of definition, measurement and also response costs in terms of getting information on other labour on-costs. I understand that the ABS will mount a survey to collect that type of data in the near future. It is worth noting, however, that the costs which are measured-I mentioned this earlier in Question Time also-by the ABS are consistent with that component of the CAI survey which measures the same thing. The OECD figure of 35 per cent includes social security-type taxes which are levied on the employer. In the first instance, there is a charge on the employer, like a payroll tax, which has an effect on a firm's total taxation bill like any other corporate tax, a fact which is frequently overlooked by those who comment on the level of corporate taxation in Australia; that is, the level of payroll tax, or payroll tax equivalents in the form of a social security tax, is levied at a very much lower rate on business in Australia than it is in many European and other countries. Therefore, it is quite wrong and misleading to compare corporate tax rates between those countries and Australia without taking into account the other taxes which are levied on business. It is a convenient piece of propaganda for people who have a particular political axe to grind, such as Mr Elliott, but it certainly does not add much to the sum of human knowledge or understanding of this rather complex issue. I have a table on that subject which gives a sample of payroll taxes which are levied in Australia and a number of other countries. Payroll taxes levied in Australia average out at 1.8 per cent; in Germany, 7 per cent; in France, 14 per cent; in Japan, 4.2 per cent and the United States of America, 4.9 per cent. When the whole tax situation is considered, Australia is not a high business tax country. As to tax revenues as a proportion of gross domestic product, not as a proportion of wages-that applies to the earlier figures too-in the calendar year 1983 Australia had a total of 30 per cent; France, 44.6 per cent; Italy, 40.6 per cent; Norway, 46.6 per cent; the United States, 29 per cent, almost identical to Australia, it should be noted; and the United Kingdom, 37.8 per cent. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it a fact that the Minister has been involved in negotiations with the Australian Medical Association and others over doctors' awards and arrangements in the veterans' general hospital system? The Minister will be aware that contracts with visiting medical officers expired at midnight last night. As any collapse of service in the veterans' general hospital system will soon place impossible demands on the overall hospital system, will he advise the Senate of the exact position at this time? Will he ensure that the current crisis in our hospitals is not further exacerbated? Senator GIETZELT —I thank Senator Sheil for the question. I was hoping that I would get such a question so that I would have the opportunity of allaying the concern that I am sure the veteran community and members of parliament would have about the suggestion that doctors would be withdrawing their services in the six repatriation hospitals as from 1 May, which is today. The fact is, as I was advised before Question Time by the Secretary to my Department, that that situation has not developed. In fact, the overwhelming majority of specialists who attend our repatriation hospitals did turn up for work this morning and are allowing negotiations to continue. That was a spontaneous matter in every State; it was not specifically organised. It enables me to continue personally on Monday next, with a representative of the Australian Medical Association, to work towards a resolution of the conflict over fees which has been with us for a considerable period. I think Senator Sheil in particular would be aware of the fact that in his State the State Government has offered a sessional fee of $67 for doctors in the State hospital system. I am anxious to move in unison with the States in respect of the fees that will be paid. We have made an offer to the doctors, who I believe are mature enough and responsible enough to see that that is a fair proposal. Whatever the fee may be in the respective States-fees vary very considerably from State to State-we will match the fee a State is able to offer and, therefore, there will be no difference between what the State pays and what the Commonwealth pays through the repatriation system. I applaud the fact that the doctors have turned up to work this morning and are looking after the patients in the repatriation hospitals. They are clearly not yet prepared to withdraw their services, as has been suggested by one or two hotheads in the medical profession. Senator FOREMAN —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the Press release put out yesterday by the National Farmers Federation. What measures are available to crack down on the non-declaration of interest income for taxation purposes? Is the National Farmers Federation's estimate of a potential increase of $750m in revenue from this source realistic? Senator WALSH —The point which has been raised by Senator Foreman was one of the more minor distortions or misrepresentations in a piece of crude propaganda circulated yesterday by the National Farmers Federation. I may, with a bit of luck, get the opportunity to make comments about one of the more gross misrepresentations of fact that are contained in that piece of crude NFF propaganda. The Government's White Paper on taxation of 1975 estimated that some $500m in tax may not be collected because of non-declaration of dividends and interest. Under the imputation system, however, which is shortly to become operative, the cost to revenue from the non-declaration of dividends should be, as I see it, completely eliminated. That figure was expressed in 1984-85 dollars and there would have been, other things being equal, some movement upwards from the $500m, but probably much more than compensated for by the downward movement in dividends income tax previously evaded because of the introduction of the imputation system. Once that becomes operative it follows logically that the NFF's crude piece of propaganda is assuming the non-disclosure of some $750m from interest payments alone. If the NFF is interested in doing anything about the collection of taxation from interest payments not declared for taxable income, the first and best thing it should do about it is to get right behind the Government in enacting the Australia Card legislation in order that that tax which is due is properly collected. The NFF should start lobbying the Liberal Party, with which I understand its President has close links, and try to force it to let that legislation through the Senate. Alternatively, if Mr McLachlan is looking for an alternative he could, I suppose, put up a proposition that an interest withholding tax be applied, but that itself would entail its own administrative difficulties. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It refers to the current negotiations between the two super-powers concerning the possible elimination of medium range nuclear missiles and possibly short range missiles from Europe. I ask: First, has the Australian Government been consulted or has it had any input at all into this vital issue? Secondly, what is the Government's attitude to the proposals? Thirdly, is the Government aware of the great fear of Western European countries that the withdrawal of all nuclear missiles will leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces at substantially inferior strength in conventional forces, compared with the Warsaw Pact? Does the Government support that concern? Fourthly, in view of this concern, has the Government advocated an immediate resumption of the mutual and beneficial forces reduction talks-the MBFR-with a view to achieving a substantial reduction and parity of conventional forces between NATO and the Warsaw forces? If the Government has not done so already, will it now do so? Senator GARETH EVANS —I know that the Australian Government has been kept very closely in touch with successive stages of the developments in Soviet-United States arms control talks over the last year. That has taken the form not only of consultations throughout our Embassy in Washington but also of the dispatch of high level envoys to Australia in the aftermath of each major stage in the developments to brief closely and personally in particular the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Defence on what has been going on. As to Australia's perception of what is currently happening in Geneva, we take the view that the prospects for conclusion of an agreement eliminating longer range and intermediate range nuclear weapons, the intermediate-range nuclear force category, from Europe and reducing their levels in Asia do remain good. The United States of America tabled a draft INF treaty during the seventh round of the Geneva talks and, according to Press reports, the Soviet Union has now responded with its draft. It was anticipated that one obstacle to the conclusion of a long range INF agreement would be the prospect of leaving Europe vulnerable to a Soviet predominance in shorter range INF systems. The Soviet Union has apparently since indicated its willingness to reach an agreement eliminating shorter-range INF systems on a global basis and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries are evaluating this proposal. Outstanding issues, particularly relating to verification, are to be discussed during the current eighth round of the Geneva negotiations. Australia would like to see an agreement concluded which would eliminate long-range INF weapons systems on a global basis. We see an agreement which allows the Soviet Union to retain intermediate-range nuclear weapons in the Asian region as an interim arrangement only. I note the points made by Senator Sir John Carrick with respect to some of the concerns expressed by the European countries about the vulnerability which they might experience in the absence of INF systems on their shores. That is obviously the most sensitive single issue in this current round of negotiations and it is one on which the Australian Government is keeping a close eye as, of course, are the major parties to the negotiations. Basically, we take the position that we believe that the reduction and ultimately the complete removal of all nuclear weapon systems is something wholly to the good and we are not especially impressed, except in the shorter range tactical sense I suppose, with arguments that are concerned about the absence of nuclear weapons entirely as leaving open strategic vulnerability. I will see whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs wishes to add further to what I have said and I will see whether he has any specific comment in particular on the last part of Senator Sir John Carrick's question about the balanced force reduction talks which he specifically adverted to. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. What are the implications for the Australian automobile industry of today's announcement by the Japanese auto giant Nissan that it intends to establish closer links with the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd and co-operate in motor vehicle production? Senator BUTTON —Nissan has today made an announcement to the effect that it proposes to enter into some joint model production with the Ford Motor Co. of Australia Ltd. That is consistent with arrangements that it has made with the parent company in the United States of America. It is highly appropriate in the Australian context, and the Government certainly welcomes the proposal for joint arrangements and joint production between those two major companies in Australia. It is consistent with the car plan which the Government announced in 1984. It is part of a series of discussions which have taken place between various companies in relation to the objectives of the car plan. To that extent the announcement is very much welcome. I should also say that Nissan has announced or is taking steps to substantially improve its investment pattern in Australia and is examining the question of exports from this country. Nissan is already a significant exporter of component parts and it is looking at further export activity from Australia, which is consistent with the strategy which is now being adopted by a number of Japanese companies. In conclusion: For a long time we have held the view that five vehicle manufacturers producing 13 or 14 models is totally inconsistent with economic efficiency in the vehicle industry in Australia. This is an important step towards model reduction and consolidation and better use of facilities, and it is very much welcomed by the Government. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Has the Minister seen the Australian Financial Review article today in which the paper claims to have official validation of a cost in excess of $5,680m for the replacement of submarines? How does the Government reconcile this huge and indefensible cost of over $900m per boat, taking into account the all-in costs, with the cost of $200m for the lead boat in the British Upholder Class, which is technically both a safe-and I emphasise safe-design and a far more technologically advanced design than either the HDW-IKL or Kockums design? Is it correct that the Minister and his Department are outraged by the last-minute proposal from Kockums to build part of the first hull in Sweden? Senator BUTTON —If I can deal with the last part of the question first. I suppose I lost the capacity for much outrage several years ago, having been in the Senate now for 12 years. So I am not outraged by a suggestion of that kind, and I do not believe that my Department is outraged. In answer to the other part of the question, I have not seen the article in the Australian Financial Review, but someone informed me of the broad contents of that article. At this stage the Government has not addressed the costings and so on of the submarine in detail as a government. When that process takes place I might be in a better position to comment on the suggestions made in the honourable senator's question. Senator COLEMAN —I have a two-part question that I direct to the Minister for Finance. Initially, I refer to Mr Ian McLachlan's statement yesterday that the whole focus of the National Farmers Federation's spending cut proposals of-I think from memory-something of the order of $11 billion was to provide government payments and services only to those who needed them and to move away from what can only be called middle class welfare. I ask the Minister whether that statement is consistent with other statements and actions by the National Farmers Federation which have implications for Commonwealth expenditures. In that same Press release there is a proposal that what is described as a `rationalisation of health expenditure' would save $5.8 billion. Could the Minister advise the Senate of the implications of cuts of that magnitude? Senator WALSH —Regarding the first part of the question, the National Farmers Federation mounted a savage campaign ostensibly against the imposition of an assets test for pension entitlement. Of course, it was a campaign against the Labor Government launched by Ian McLachlan, sustained by Ian McLachlan, in the political interests of Ian McLachlan, grossly abusing the trust placed in him by members of the National Farmers Federation. He continues to do this and continues to misuse the National Farmers Federation to pursue his personal political ambitions. I find it incongruous to say the least that the same McLachlan who led a vicious campaign against the imposition of an assets test for pension entitlement-in other words, a measure aimed at removing a degree of middle class welfare-should now appear as the apostle, indeed the Messiah, of the removal of middle class welfare from the system, In other words, McLachlan has done a 180-degree turn on this issue as he has on so many issues. The only consistent thing about McLachlan is that he consistently opposes this Government; he has no consistency on policies. Regarding the health part of the question, the payments on the health function by the Commonwealth Government in the present financial year-and it is not just the Department of Health on the health function-are of the order of $8.9 billion from which according to McLachlan $5.8 billion can be readily cut. That would leave a residue of $3.1 billion. On these items alone payments to the States for hospital treatment of pensioners is $1.26 billion; for nursing homes it is of the order of $1.2 billion; payments for pensioner and veterans' pharmaceuticals is $560m; and for veterans' hospitals it is $350m. That adds up to $3.37 billion, which is more than the residual $3.1 billion which McLachlan's cuts to the health function would leave. In other words, even after he has abolished Medicare, the identified health fund grants to the States and all of the community care services programs which are going to come as repayments to the States, McLachlan's proposal would cut back on the health services delivered to pensioners and old diggers. That is what McLachlan's proposals entail. The final contradiction, the final irony, the final piece of humbug from this fellow who has abused his position as President of the National Farmers Federation to maintain a consistent political campaign against this Government is that if he were to abolish Medicare as a result of his $5.8 billion cuts from the health function-the figure would vary a bit; for example, if nursing home funding were completely abolished it would have less effect on the consumer price index than the abolition of Medicare-the consumer price index would be boosted by that McLachlan policy by anything up to 6 per cent. And this comes from the same fellow who is simultaneously mounting a campaign to remove from Commonwealth revenue $5.6 billion by abolishing the excise on refined petroleum products for a CPI effect, he says, of 5.7 per cent but an actual first round CPI effect of 2 per cent. So for a deficit neutral final Budget outcome McLachlan is advocating on the one hand a policy which would add up to 6 per cent to the consumer price index and on the other an offset policy which would take 2 per cent off it in the first instance and perhaps something between 3 per cent and 4 per cent in the nth instance. Senator WATSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security: Is it a fact that the foreshadowed increases in pension payments scheduled for May of this year will be delayed by one month? Why does the Government appear to pursue a policy of discrimination against the most disadvantaged section of the community? Senator TATE —There is no basis upon which I can answer that particular speculation by Senator Watson and there is no way in which I can offer a comment to aid the Senate in understanding the basis for his question. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. A year after the Chernobyl power plant disaster, and with the real fear of contaminated goods reaching the food chain, I ask: Is the Minister aware that a decision has been taken by the British Government to continue restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep from contaminated areas in Wales, in particular from Cumbria and Snowdonia, and further to continue the monitoring of imported foods and checking of retail stores for foods that might have high radiation levels? Is the Minister also aware that food lines have been imported from countries that might have been affected by fallout with these goods finding their way on to supermarket shelves in this country? One example is a jam made from blackberries grown in Poland, Krakus, a product of Poland imported by an Australian firm. Has any action been taken to test any food imports for contamination? If so, is the testing for contamination still taking place, what foods were tested and what contamination has been found? Have any imports been halted from those countries that could have been affected by any fallout from Chernobyl? Senator TATE —Honourable senators obviously will be aware that radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident covered many European countries including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and this will affect certain foods, depending on where the fallout ends up in the edible portion of the food chain. Australia imports only one to 2 per cent of its foodstuffs from the potentially affected areas of Europe, including the USSR. Even so, a surveillance program was implemented on 3 July 1986 to check foodstuffs imported from these areas. This program involves the provision of certification giving caesium 137 concentrations from certain countries with a backup program of random sampling and testing of foodstuffs imported from all European countries. A variety of foods has been checked in the surveillance program, including alcoholic beverages, vegetables, dried and preserved fruits, chocolates, jams-which was the example used in Senator Jones's question-herbs, olive oil, seafoods, nuts, cheese and cereals. The only foodstuffs in which levels exceeded the trigger level were hazelnuts, some herbs and a few cheeses. It is not expected that other types of foodstuffs would contain significant amounts of radioactivity. The Health Department has evaluated the risks to the Australian population from consumption of these items and found these risks to be negligible. On this basis, permits for release of the items from custody by Customs have been granted. A surveillance program will continue until such time as it is demonstrated that the contamination levels in imported foodstuffs from the potentially affected countries are so low that continuation of the program is not warranted. Senator MESSNER —I address my question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Is it a fact that the total number of new motor vehicle registrations in March 1987 was the lowest recorded monthly figure since September of 1968, almost 20 years ago? Is it also a fact that the total number of registrations in the March quarter 1987 was running at an annual rate of only 456,000, about 35 per cent below that in the March quarter of 1985? What impact has this unprecedented decline had on employment in the motor vehicle component and dealership sectors of the industry? Finally, what contribution has the decline in motor vehicle manufacturing made to the 19,000 jobs fall in total manufacturing employment in the last two years since the initial depreciation in February of 1985? Senator BUTTON —The first part of the question related to the recent figures for vehicle registrations. My answer to that is that it is correct that they are the lowest figures since 1968, as Senator Messner said. I have no reason to dispute the suggestion in that part of the question. Senator Messner went on to ask me what effect that has had on unemployment-for example, in the motor vehicle components sector and the dealer sector. First of all, there has been a significant shakeout in the dealer sector of the industry. It is perhaps strange and brutal sounding to say that it is accepted by industry commentators-it is not just my opinion-that there was a need for a considerable shakeout in the motor vehicle dealer industry in this country. It has happened elsewhere; it was bound to happen in Australia at some time. In most countries it is a cyclical industry and there is pretty clear evidence that we were overserviced with dealer networks and establishments in this country. There is no doubt that that has happened. I cannot give precise figures but I agree that that has happened. Secondly, Senator Messner asked me about the effect on employment in the motor vehicle components sector. There has been no negligible effect at all of the decline in vehicle sales on the components sector. There have been, of course, closures of particular plants and so on. That is an essential part of the process of restructuring and rationalising an industry such as this. I think one would find that if one went to most component manufacturers one would more likely receive complaints of shortages, particularly of skilled tradesmen, than of people losing employment. The other thing I draw Senator Messner's attention to-perhaps it was not without some reason that he failed to ask me about this-is employment in the vehicle manufacturing establishments in Australia. As I understand it, four out of five of the vehicle manufacturers are operating at full capacity. There are a number of reasons for that. I happen to know, for example, that one company is now advertising that it wants to take on 450 new employees. Those sorts of figures are quite substantial increases in employment in an industry of this kind. If one looks at the industry in aggregate, I think one will find no significant decline in employment at all. In fact, there is a probable increase in employment in some sectors, excluding the remarks which I made about dealerships and the problems which dealers have been facing, which, of course, we very much regret. Senator Messner —Which company is going to employ more? Senator BUTTON —Nissan. Senator TATE —Yesterday Senator Peter Baume asked me a question concerning the Australian content of electorate office automatic data processing equipment. Whilst I am not in a position to give a full answer on the particulars of his question, I would like to make an interim response, which is as follows: During the tendering processes for the electorate office equipment, HRC-Time submitted its proposal on the basis of a certain Australian content for the equipment it was tendering. It is the responsibility of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, the central purchasing agency, to verify local content of the proposals by firms tendering to the Australian Government. In this instance, the Australian content was investigated and was confirmed. Consultations between officials of my Department and DOLGAS are continuing to enable me to give a fuller answer to Senator Peter Baume. Senator WALSH —During Question Time I said that the Australian Bureau of Statistics would be conducting shortly a more comprehensive survey of labour on-costs. I understand that a final decision has not been made to do that. It is still under consideration. I just want to put the record straight. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does Senator Watson wish to present a report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts? Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I must apologise to the Senate. Because of problems in the House of Representatives, it was not possible to table that report in that House today. It is the wish of the Committee that the report be tabled in both Houses simultaneously because of its importance. Debate resumed. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(3.03) —Prior to the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was detailing that the merit clauses to be found in the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 are the same. That clause is what I describe as a permissive clause, not a restrictive one. I was making the point that the Public Service Reform Bill 1984 contained a restrictive clause which related to the appointment of people on the basis of patronage. I was asking why the merit clause in this Bill could not be beefed up, to put it in colloquial terms. I had not reached the point of saying why I thought that was necessary. There seems to be agreement that in all of the Bills there is reference to quantitative measures. That is clearly understood and agreed. I want to spend some time pointing out the difference in the reliance on those measures. The Public Service Reform Bill asked for quantitative or other indicators to be taken into account. The Government and the draftsman obviously saw the need for an option. The Bill now before us refers to quantitative and other indicators-no choice, no option. As Senator Reid pointed out this morning, any person, whatever his intelligence, appearing before a magistrate or judge who has a capacity to impose a fine or gaol sentence knows very much the difference between the words `and' and `or' because a fine or gaol is completely different from a fine and gaol. On that basis, I say that `quantitative or other indicators' is completely different from `quantitative and other indicators'. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986 allowed private enterprise and education institutions to set a quantitative measure or aim. The legislation went on to say that the aim may or may not be in numerical terms. I offer that detail just to point out that it is quite clear that there is meant to be reference to quantitative targets. I have no problem with that. I would expect that people who might want to report on their success may well want to refer to their capacity or otherwise to achieve their targets. I now wish to link the need for quantitative indicators, with which I have no dispute, to the ministerial power of direction. Senator Peter Baume made reference in his speech last night to clause 12 of the Bill before us and indicated that this clause is found in a variety of Acts relating to statutory authorities. I agree with him. Many Bills or Acts relating to statutory authorities contain miscellaneous ministerial direction clauses. Senator Baume did not refer to the ministerial power under section 11 which gives the Minister power to make recommendations with respect to the program of the statutory authority. My concern is that, under that power, a Minister can recommend that certain changes be made on the basis that that will improve the effectiveness of the program and that that, coupled with the desire of many heads of authorities to get on with their Ministers, or at the very least not to displease their Ministers, creates an incentive for the merit clause to be overridden. On that basis, because of the relationship between an authority and a Minister, it is more appropriate that this Bill have a stronger merit protection clause than did the private enterprise Bill, the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986. That Bill did not contain a clause that allows a Minister to, in effect, set targets. It is my view that that is what section 11 of this Bill does. It enables the Minister to give certain directions with respect to the corporate plan which may or may not include numerical targets or quantitative measures. It is the linking of those two that is important to me. It is my view that we have taken it a step further because someone outside the authority can set the targets. I have no problem with an institution, an authority, private enterprise or a higher education institution setting its own targets. However, in my view, it is the relationship between the Minister and the authority that creates an incentive for the authority to satisfy the Minister and try to achieve its targets. On that basis I think the merit protection clause, because it is permissive and not restrictive, is inadequate. Some reference has been made to the fact that the Opposition is seeking to have this matter referred to the Business Regulation Review Unit and that a regulation impact statement be prepared. There is some confusion here which the Government has not taken the opportunity to clear up. On 26 March in the House of Representatives, Mr Willis, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, said: It is true that this legislation does not have a regulation impact statement, but this legislation has been not to the Business Regulation Review Unit. . . He went on to say that it has consulted the authorities themselves. I would have thought that it is small chips to consult the authorities themselves. That is presumably what the Business Regulation Review Unit is meant to be all about-that is, to give an objective view on the matter. On the other hand, on 28 April Senator Button said in this place: I understand that the Business Regulation Review Unit was also given the opportunity to be involved in discussions on this and other policies the Government has introduced in the equal opportunity policy area. Senator Button, by implication, says that it has responded because he says: `I am not certain of the comments'. But it is not clear whether he was directly contradicting Mr Willis or simply saying that the unit was given the opportunity. I think that matter ought to be cleared up. This is an important matter because some people, when referring to a statutory authority in the context of an equal opportunity Bill, have in mind some stuffy little authority dealing with some boring aspect of our lives. They do not necessarily realise that a number of quite substantial businesses will be affected by this piece of legislation-not the least of which are Australian Airlines, the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission. It is appropriate that those bodies operate as efficiently as they can. There is no reason why we should impose regulation on them and not take care to ensure that it is the minimal regulation possible and that they are not restricted in achieving their goals as efficiently as possible. It is inappropriate to give only the private enterprise business community the benefit of the Business Regulation Review Unit. The business entities that are partly governmental, in other words the statutory authorities, should also have the benefit of that Unit. This legislation should not be proceeded with until that has been done. A further amendment that we have sought would mean that subcontractors would not be included in the plans. It seems perfectly fair to me, as we are talking about an educative process, that the first step for private enterprise, statutory authorities and educational institutions should be to learn to understand, master, implement and operate on their plans for themselves. To put on them in the first instance the extra burden of subcontractors does not seem to me to be at all appropriate. Additionally, I make the point that when we subcontract something out we take it outside of our organisation. By definition, therefore, it is not something that we can achieve within the organisation at that time. I am not convinced that subcontractors should be included in this legislation in any event. Let me sum up by saying that I support the need for equal opportunity programs. I resent the people in the community and in this chamber who are presenting the view that the Liberal Party of Australia has backed off from equal opportunity programs. Quite the opposite is the case. We have suggested a number of amendments and we have said that, if we get those amendments, we will vote for the Bill. In that event the Bill would provide a good, strong and effective equal opportunity program for people in statutory authorities to give what we have asked for-equal opportunity to people in statutory authorities such as Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Accordingly, unless we get those amendments, I will not support the Bill. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(3.12) —We are debating the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987. The outline of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states: The purpose of the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987 is to require certain Commonwealth authorities employing 40 or more employees to promote equal opportunity in employment for women and members of designated groups by developing equal employment opportunity programs. Aboriginals and descendants of indigenous Torres Strait Islanders, migrants whose first language is not English and their children, and the physically or mentally disabled are included in the definition of designated groups. At the outset I have to say that I have always supported legislation that goes towards equality of opportunity, and I believe that the Liberal party of Australia has done that. I quote from the platform of our party under the heading `Women'. It states: Women to have equality of opportunity and freedom of choice to engage in political, civil and community activities, employment and education. That seems to me to be pretty clear. The quotation continues: Removal of remaining areas of discrimination against women. In the section headed `Employment' it is stated: Jobs should be open to all those capable of meeting the employers' specific requirements without regard to sex, age, race, disability, politics or religious beliefs. Of course, many of the people in the designated groups would be covered by that. That is the position in the Liberal Party platform. I believe that we should be consistent in what we do in this matter. We all know, because it has been said so often, that the Liberal Party supported the Public Service Reform Act 1984 and the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Bill of 1986. The all important and much discussed merit clause is enshrined in both the 1986 Bill and the 1987 Bill. So I do not believe that there is much credibility to the argument that has been put that there is a move in this 1987 Bill towards quotas. I do not believe that that argument can be sustained. I just wish to speak briefly about women in the work force because that is really the matter on which this debate has developed. The fact is that 46.3 per cent of all women are in the paid work force and 38 per cent of the total work force are women. So we should ensure that the actions that we take in the Senate lead to genuine equality of opportunity. Senator Crichton-Browne made what I thought was a very good point earlier today when he said that sometimes legislation can make a situation worse. He mentioned that people may say that some women or disadvantaged groups have been given jobs purely to make the situation look good. Of course, if that did happen, the legislation would be making the situation worse for the very groups that we are trying to assist. That is one argument that I believe has some merit. It is something that the Government should watch and ensure does not happen. If it does seem to be happening, action should be taken. Maybe I am too simple but to me the meaning in the merit clause is obvious. It is clause (4) on page 3 of the Bill, and it states in pretty plain English: Nothing in this Act shall be taken to require any action incompatible with the principle that employment matters should be dealt with on the basis of merit. To me that is very plain. I believe a person just entering high school would know what it means. I believe it overrides sub-clause 6 (g) which, to be consistent, I will also read: (g) to set: (i) The particular objectives to be achieved by the program; and (ii) the quantitative and other indicators against which the effectiveness of the program is to be assessed. Some people have said that that means that there will be quotas. I do not believe that that is the case. We also have to remember what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, said in his second reading speech. I point out again to the Senate that, if there were a court case on this matter, this is something that the courts would have to take into consideration. Mr Willis said: I wish to emphasise the programs are not intended to lead to, and will not lead to, positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit, and the whole thrust of the legislation will strengthen the merit principle, by ensuring the review of any existing discriminatory personnel or employment procedures. That is something that the courts could take into account if any action were taken under this Bill. I believe that if we in the Liberal Party vote against this Bill we will not be consistent. I believe this Bill is a small step towards the aims in the Bills that I mentioned earlier and that we supported on other occasions. I remain to be convinced of any sound reason why we should not support this legislation as we supported previous legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the amendments that we are seeking may not be supported and accepted by the Government. Last night we heard some pretty severe criticism by Senator Peter Baume of certain people in relation to this Bill. I believe he spoke very eloquently on many matters and I refer all people to that speech, which starts on page 2131 of Hansard. I would like to help as much as I can towards justness, fairness and equality for all Australians. I believe this Bill to be a small step towards that aim, both for females and others in Australia. Progress towards fairness should always be gradual; we do not want to change things in the community too rapidly. That was one element that that caused the previous Australian Labor Party Government to come unstuck. It came into government and tried to make changes much too rapidly and the people of Australia showed that they did not like that kind of attitude. However, this legislation is not rapid change, and it is something that I thought we would have supported. I have to say that I am unconvinced that the legislation is so bad that the Liberal Party should reverse its policy attitude, and so I will support the legislation. Of course, I would like the amendments to be carried-but if they are not, I will still support the legislation. I know that the chamber would like to vote today. In closing, I wish to say that our reasons for rejecting the legislation are specious. I do not believe that it imposes quotas. The merit principle is virtually the same as that which we supported on previous occasions. Therefore, I shall support the legislation at the appropriate time. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(3.21) —I shall be brief. I have listened to the debate with great interest during the past day or so, and I noted that many speakers seemed to be a little confused about definitions-for example, as between equality of opportunity and equal opportunity. I, too, find that a little difficult. I am also concerned about the question of merit and quotas. I took the trouble to consult the publication Human Rights in Australia by Dr Gabriel Moens, and I asked the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) whether I could incorporate extracts from that in Hansard. I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Discrimination is an important public issue relevant to any analysis of human rights. There is a great deal of discussion on discrimination (much of it rhetoric) but inadequate rational analysis and understanding of the concept. Discrimination is a problem which arises in relation to equality before the law. All human beings are not equal in every respect. They are distinguishable not only by physical and mental attributes but also by their particular circumstances. These manifold differences must inevitably lead to acts which involve what appears to be discrimination. Few will disagree with the proposition that a young child cannot be given the same rights or subjected to the same duties as an adult. Likewise there are countless situations where one human being must be treated differently from another. What then is the freedom from discrimination? It is an aspect of equality before the law-and should rightly be viewed in that context. Legally, in the United States and in countries which have Bills of Rights, this idea is expressed as the right of equality before the law and to equal protection of the law. Equality before the law means that in the making of a law every person is to be treated equally. Equal protection of the law means that in applying or enforcing a law already made, there should be no differentiation except on a rational and justifiable basis. But as indicated above it is impossible to treat everyone as equal. This has been recognised by the courts of countries where this freedom is a fundamental right. For this reason equality has come to mean not that every person should be treated in the same manner but that every person who is in an equal situation should be treated equally-that those in like situations should be treated alike. Where people are treated differently, there must exist a rational and justifiable basis. 9.4 Affirmative Action The phrases ``affirmative action'' and ``reverse discrimination'' are not synonymous. Whilst all reverse discrimination amounts to affirmative action the converse is not always the case. Affirmative action includes all positive steps taken to assist persons to overcome the disadvantages of inequality. In this sense affirmative action has always been practised. Most social welfare schemes are theoretically affirmative action programs. However, not all these schemes are identified with reverse discrimination. Affirmative action becomes reverse discrimination when persons who are alleged to have suffered a disadvantage are given special treatment at the expense of those who have done no wrong. Merit and qualifications are bypassed in the process. Quota systems concerning employment and educational opportunities fall within this category. In the United States, government institutions and other institutions receiving government assistance have at times been asked to . . . Whilst reverse discrimination cannot be justified, it has to be recognised that certain other forms of affirmative action may sometimes be necessary to ensure equality of opportunity as distinct from result. This is when members of a group suffer real disadvantages in competing fairly with others owing to the effects of past discrimination or other social or historical factors. In such situations the desirable course of action is to render assistance to the disadvantaged person in order that they acquire the capacity to compete on fair terms. These could take the form of increased educational facilities and material assistance programs (such as those which exist for aborigines). Such programs would not infringe the rights of others and could be considered a matter of social responsibility. On the contrary, socialist inspired programs have, as their object, the artifical and coercive equalisation of the human race irrespective of merit. This is a form of wealth distribution which does little to assist disadvantaged persons in the long term when the overall economic and political costs are taken into account. ``Equal opportunity'' is an attractive slogan. It suggests fair play and just rewards for the deserving. Whatever is presented as an equal opportunity program attracts broad support as the concept is popularly assumed to mean the elimination of unfair disadvantages-an object most people find laudable. It is therefore not surprising that activists who seek affirmative action involving reverse discrimination have preempted the title ``equal opportunity'' (a subtle change from equality of opportunity) for their programs which are essentially geared to coercive redistribution of material benefits. ``Equal opportunity'' has therefore become a fraudulent trade name for practices which in fact destroy opportunities based on merit. In societies deeply committed to the merit principle, the label ``equal opportunity'' becomes a useful form of deception. It is a strategy commonly adopted by modern radicals for the purpose of subverting established institutions. They operate under a phrase (equal opportunity) which is similar in phraseology though different in content from an important liberal value (equality of opportunity) and succeed in convincing the public (including liberals). A redefinition of ``equality of opportunity'' has taken place. The primary purpose of this is deception. Reliance on the phrase ``equality of opportunity'' lulls the public and liberals into the belief that the policy is a liberal one. The supporters of new programs do not have the integrity to point out that they are redefining the phrase. See further on the devious manner in which the modern ``coercive utopian'' operates, LJM Cooray and J Carlton Socialism in Australia (Sydney, 1985). The American scheme is based on the incorrect assumption that blacks, women and ethnic groups are under-represented only because of the bias of others. Under-representation does not always reflect discrimination. It is only one factor. Affirmative action programs, while trying to overcome this problem, do not correct most of the causes. In essence, some forms of affirmative action are necessary in Australia to overcome discrimination against women, Aborigines, the disabled and ethnic minorities. But what is to be preferred are the soft options, which amount to a more rigorous enforcement of existing, and possibly some new, anti-discrimination laws. The use of ``hard'' affirmative action of quotas-the reservation of a specific proportion of jobs within a department or a company for under-represented groups-does nothing to overcome most basic causes of under-representation, including inadequate education and training opportunities and are, in themselves, discriminatory against those who, under normal circumstances, would have progressed on the basis of merit. Supporters of affirmative action in Australia have tried to distance themselves from the controversial US system of setting fixed quotas by using the term ``targets'' and ``goals'' to explain their proposals. But it's a distinction without a difference. The fact that a target is a form of quota is an undeniable truth. The argument that quotas are fixed while targets are flexible is semantic. Both entail favouring people who, in normal circumstances, would not be employed or promoted on the basis of ability or merit. They progress solely on the basis of sex, colour or ethnicity. A great deal depends on how rigorously the target is enforced. But, generally, targets and goals, like quotas, are illogical. If, as affirmative action supporters claim, targets are intended only to ensure the appointment of the best candidates regardless of sex or race, they are redundant because the appointment of the best candidates can be achieved through the traditional merit-based selection criteria which are enforceable to some degree under existing sex and race discrimination laws. These laws need strengthening. New laws are not required. Targets often ensure the selection of inferior candidates because, to meet the target, standards must be lowered and applicants who normally would not succeed leapfrog those who, on the basis or merit and experience, should have got the jobs. Skills are not equally distributed through the community. That is a regrettable fact. We should be trying, through a better education and training system, to ensure that everyone can compete in the workplace. Then, if a person is Aboriginal, he gets the job he wants because he is the best applicant, and not because some artificial device has been imposed on the employers to force him to employ more Aborigines. The government's trial affirmative action program involves 31 companies and tertiary institutions. As well, many government agencies, including Telecom, have introduced schemes to lift the proportions of women and minority groups in their workforces. Dr Moens says the government's acceptance of affirmative action proposals, initiated mainly by feminist groups, is part of a trend in which the ideal of equality of opportunity has been replaced by an ideal of equality of result. The Human Rights Commission, which is supposed to fight discrimination, seems to consider the anti-discrimination principle a thing of the past-it now appears to favour a distribution of benefits on the basis of sex, ethnicity and colour. This is a very disturbing development in our society. 9.8.3 Targets and Merit Proponents of the setting of ``targets'' argue that these targets are compatible with, and even required by, the traditional merit principle. In trying to demonstrate the compatibility of ``targets'' with the traditional ``merit'', principle as implemented in universities, proponents of EEO programmes make a valiant attempt to distinguish between a ``target'', the setting of which is mandatory, on the one hand, and the establishment of a ``quota'', the use of which is specifically excluded in an EEO programme, on the other. Advocates of EEO programmes, involving the setting of targets, emphasise that targets are flexible whereas quotas are rigid: A quota system, applied in the employment context, would impose a fixed number or percentage which must be attained, or which cannot be exceeded; the crucial consideration would be whether the mandatory numbers of persons have been for example, hired or promoted. A goal, (or target) on the other hand, is a numerical objective, fixed realistically in terms of the number of vacancies expected and the number of qualified applicants available in the relevant job market. Thus, as the above quotation suggests, the incompatability of a ``quota'' with the appointment of the ``best'' candidate lies in its inflexibility. Indeed, in the absence of highly qualified female candidates, the achievement of a ``quota'' requires the appointment of applicants who are less qualified than some male applicants; it sometimes necessitates the appointment of even unqualified applicants. A ``target'', in the absence of qualified applicants, does not require the appointment of incompetents. As a ``quota'' may sometimes involve the appointment of unqualified applicants whereas a ``target'' does not, advocates of the setting of targets jump to the conclusion that targets are supposedly consistent with the merit principle because, using the language of Professor Lauchlan Chipman, ``you appoint from the target group to the extent of the numerical target only if there are sufficient qualified people available to reach that number.'' He continues: (B)y misrepresenting the quota doctrine in this . . . way, and then giving a quite specious reassurance that targets are consistent with the merit principle (which in general they are not-they simply do not license the appointment of incompetent people which is a quite different point) busy managers and the many members of the community who are properly and genuinely concerned about issues of equality are soothed into thinking that claims about . . . violation on the merit principle are silly and uninformed. As Chipman suggests, the setting of a target may still be inconsistent with the traditional merit principle if the setting involves or results in the appointment of some applicants who are not the ``best'' on offer but progress on the bais of their sex due to the existence of an EEO programme. Does the setting of a ``target'' result in the appointment of some applicants who are not the ``best'' on offer? The setting of a ``target'' is in practice the result of a sophisticated and statistical examination of the existing workforce and of the employment practices and procedures in use in the university (or in the public service). In the main, equal employment opportunity coordinators are expected to undertake a three-tiered examination. In the first stage, they are required to identify legislation and regulations, if any, which directly exclude women from the specific job categories. In the second stage, they determine whether and, if so, to what extent the occupational qualifications are genuinely job related, justified by business necessity. In the third stage, equal employment opportunity coordinators investigate the working conditions, including the physical aspects of the workplace and the employment practices and procedures which adversely affect women or discourage them from applying for desirable positions. Our analysis suggests that affirmative action advocates fail to appreciate that the traditional ``merit'' principle is incompatible with the setting of ``targets'' or ``quotas'' because of the impossibility to predict the statistical and numerical outcome of the implementation of that principle. These advocates, in tenaciously repeating the claim that the traditional ``merit'' principle is compatible with the setting of ``targets'' and ``quotas'' assume that skills and interests are distributed uniformly throughout society, and further assume that women, in the absence of sexual discrimination, will be represented in the workforce, including positions of influence and power, in proportion to their total numbers in society. However, the assumption that skills and interests are distributed uniformly throughout society is rebuttable. Whilst one hesitates to say anything at all these days about sexual differences, the claim that males and females have the same skills and interests, even potentially, has never been demonstrated satisfactorily. The argument that skills and interests are distributed uniformly throughout society is made by ``empirical'' egalitarians who believe that as a matter of empirical fact unequal results are due to some form of discrimination. Thus, their argument assumes that women, if they were given the chance, would be as interested as men in any line of work implying that the underrepresentations of women, and sex segregation, proved that women are not given that chance. In fact, there is an impressive body of literature which reveals that physical differences between the sexes in terms of many secondary sexual characteristics are the result of evolutionary selection over hundreds of generations, and that this evolution has been accompanied by corresponding psychological differences. Furthermore, practices and procedures which are genuinely compatible with the traditional ``merit'' principle only open up jobs to groups which were previously excluded from positions on the basis of their sex. Since the opening up of jobs to members of previously excluded groups increases the total number of applicants from which an employer may select the ``best'' candidate, the result of a selection procedure is made even more unpredictable than in the past. It could also be argued that the setting of targets has a discriminatory effect in that a different target is set for each department. The absence of a uniform target is due to the fact that a target is ``fixed realistically in terms of the number of vacancies expected and the number of qualified applicants available in the relevant job market''. Although the emphasis on the setting of a realistic target may reinforce the fallacious idea that targets are consistent with the merit principle, the set- ting of a different target in each department has a discriminatory effect and disadvantages the male members of professions which traditionally have a high concentration of women graduates. For example, the target in an engineering department must, if it is to be realistic, take into consideration the ``number of qualified applicants''. Consequently, the target would be very low due to the fact that there are few female engineering graduates. Therefore, the appointment of these women, even if the women were not as qualified as some male applicants, would not greatly upset the male competitors, even . . . It is an interesting document, and I commend it to honourable senators. I wish to refer briefly to one or two parts of it. Under the heading `Affirmative Action', Dr Moens states: Most social welfare schemes are theoretically affirmative action programs. However, not all these schemes are identified with reverse discrimination. Affirmative action becomes reverse discrimination when persons who are alleged to have suffered a disadvantage are given special treatment at the expense of those who have done no wrong. Merit and qualifications are bypassed in the process. Quota systems concerning employment and educational opportunities fall within this category . . . These could take the form of increased educational facilities and material assistance programs (such as those which exist for aborigines). Such programs would not infringe the rights of others and could be considered a matter of social responsibility. On the contrary, socialist inspired programs have, as their object, the artificial and coercive equalisation of the human race irrespective of merit. This is a form of wealth distribution which does little to assist disadvantaged persons in the long term when the overall economic and political costs are taken into account. Dealing with equal opportunity, Dr Moens suggests that it is an attractive slogan. He said: ``Equal opportunity'' is an attractive slogan . . . ``Equal opportunity'' has therefore become a fraudulent trade name for practices which in fact destroy opportunities based on merit. In societies deeply committed to the merit principle, the label ``equal opportunity'' becomes a useful form of deception. It is a strategy commonly adopted by modern radicals for the purpose of subverting established institutions. They operate under a phrase (equal opportunity) which is similar in phraseology though different in content from an important liberal value (equality of opportunity) and succeed in convincing the public (including liberals). A redefinition of ``equality of opportunity'' has taken place. The primary purpose of this is deception . . . Supporters of affirmative action in Australia have tried to distance themselves from the controversial US system of setting fixed quotas by using the term ``targets'' and ``goals'' to explain their proposals. But it's a distinction without a difference. The fact that a target is a form of quota is an undeniable truth. The argument that quotas are fixed while targets are flexible is semantic. Both entail favouring people who, in normal circumstances, would not be employed or promoted on the basis of ability or merit. They progress solely on the basis of sex, colour or ethnicity. Dr Moens says the government's acceptance of affirmative action proposals, initiated mainly by feminist groups, is part of a trend in which the ideal of equality of opportunity has been replaced by an ideal of equality of result. I thought that that was interesting commentary, and I commend the remainder of the article to honourable senators. I was disappointed at the change of strategy by the Liberal Party on this matter, and I am disturbed that some of my colleagues have taken a view different from the majority of Liberal Party members. I express that disappointment clearly because I think that it could have been avoided with a little more careful thought. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women)(3.27) —I rise to thank those honourable senators who have supported the Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill for their contributions. This debate has been most significant and important because, despite the decision of the Liberal Party to resile from its previous commitment to equal opportunities legislation-a political decision understood, perhaps, by the Party, but very difficult for anyone else to understand-and to move away from decisions already taken, we have noted during the debate that some Liberal members of the Senate are determined to stand by the principles of liberalism, even at great cost to their own political circumstances. It has always been the hope and the intention of our Government that matters of equal opportunity in employment should be dealt with on a bipartisan basis in this place. Indeed, we were able to achieve that, firstly, with the equal opportunity legislation applying to the Commonwealth Public Service and statutory bodies associated with it and, secondly, after a year-long pilot program-during which Senator Peter Baume representing the Liberal Party contributed in a constructive way-with the affirmative action legislation covering higher education in the private sector. It was only when we reached the third part of the package of equal employment opportunity legislative measures that the bipartisanship broke down, and that is to be regretted. We have heard many spurious arguments from those Liberals who have resiled from their equal opportunity philosophy during the debate-none is convincing. It is not necessary for me to deal with them one by one because that task has been admirably performed by Senator Peter Baume, whose contribution to the debate was outstanding, not only as an act of political bravery, but also as a most precise and detailed analysis of the flaws in the arguments of those honourable senators on his side of the chamber who have decided not to support the legislation. In closing this second reading debate, I must make a couple of comments. Senator Chaney, the Leader of the Opposition, said during his remarks that the Bill was not important; that the issues covered in the Bill were not really of importance at a time when the Government should be dealing with major economic issues. I simply remind Senator Chaney, and anyone who might have been persuaded to his point of view, that the legislation will cover about 250,000 employees, which is about half of the number of people employed by the Commonwealth throughout its Public Service departments, statutory bodies and commercial statutory bodies. It is a major section of the work force and one which, as those senators who had the opportunity to hear the contribution of Senator Giles will know, has not achieved equal employment opportunity. It not only covers women who will obtain better employment opportunities on the basis of merit as a result of this legislation, but also provides merit-based better employment opportunities for other minority groups such as disabled people, Aboriginals, Torres Strait Islanders and persons from non-English speaking backgrounds. So, it was quite inappropriate and insensitive of Senator Chaney to suggest that the Bill is not important. It is important to our Government that all employees should have the opportunity to be employed, promoted and trained on merit. It is important in the broader economic context that all employees should be given the opportunity to be as productive as possible. I am surprised that Senator Chaney did not agree with that. As I said, Senator Peter Baume dealt very adequately with the objections raised by Liberal senators during this debate. I remind honourable senators that, as far as the question of the legislation being examined by the Business Regulation Review Unit is concerned, the Unit was given the opportunity to comment on the Bill. The Unit reported on the operation of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act which is that aspect of equal employment opportunity legislation which covers the private sector. So, that objection raised by the Opposition was quite inappropriate. Similarly, it has been pointed out that the Bill does not impose additional costs and does not require the appointment of additional staff. But the Senate should be reminded that significant benefits will accrue to the community as a whole through the effective use of the talents and skills of women, migrants, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, the physically and mentally disabled and persons from non-English speaking backgrounds. A great deal of the debate, on the part of both those supporting the legislation and those seeking to oppose it, concerned the merit principle. But I think anyone making an objective assessment of the provision for the merit principle being the determining criterion in employment matters as set out in the Bill would agree, again, with the view put forward by Senator Peter Baume and recently endorsed by Senator Michael Townley, as well as by speakers on our side, that it is quite clear that in clause 3 (4) of the Bill there is an unambiguous statement that merit shall be the basis of employment and that nothing in the Bill or in the development of equal employment opportunity programs will interfere with merit as the basis of employment. Similarly, those members of the Liberal Party who are following the current Howard line tried to invent quotas in this Bill. Their attempts failed. There are no requirements for quotas in this Bill-quotas imposed by the Government, by the Minister or in any other way. This Bill, as with the previous legislative package, provides for the employing authority itself to set its own forward estimates as to how it believes it can best achieve advancement based on merit for the groups covered by the Bill. Some concern has been expressed about designated groups. The Opposition, through its amendments, seeks to restrict any further designation of groups to be covered by the Bill. I simply make it clear that the designated groups are set out in the Bill. They are women, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, mentally and physically disabled persons and persons from non-English speaking backgrounds. The Government has no immediate intention to designate any other group. In time it may be established that some other group ought to be covered by the provisions of this legislation. In summary, it has been a most interesting debate. I thank all honourable senators for their contributions and particularly note the brave and principled position taken by those Liberals who have indicated that they will stand by the principle of liberalism and equal opportunity, will not follow the current leadership of Mr Howard which regrettably has resiled from that principle and will vote with Government senators and endorse, at least to the extent they can, what ought to be the case-that is, a bipartisan attitude to the very important principle in our democratic society of equal opportunity in employment. The Government will not accept the amendment moved by the Opposition and I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Baume, Michael MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E. Jessop, D. S. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Knowles, S. C. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Mason, C. V. J. Coleman, R. N. Powell, J. F. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Robertson, E. A. Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Gietzelt, A. T. West, S. M. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Black, J. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Colston, M. A. Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. F. Archer, B. R. Reynolds, M. Messner, A. J. Macklin, M. J. (Senator Hamer did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Grimes.) Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Senate adjourned at 3.41 p.m. The following paper was tabled: GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S PROCLAMATION-COMMENCEMENT OF ACT: A Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that His Excellency had proclaimed the following Act to come into operation on the date specified: Plant Variety Rights Act 1987-1 May 1987 (Gazette No. S69, 27 April 1987). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 929) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) If Family Law Courts throughout Australia have after hours numbers to be contacted in times of family crisis, why are these telephones not manned in all centres. (2) Why are counsellors not available over weekends when most crises within families occur. (3) What is the Attorney-General planning to do about the lack of adequate counsellors within the Family Court system. Senator Gareth Evans —The Attorney- General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) & (2) The Family Court of Australia does not operate a crisis counselling service. This is not a function of the Counselling Service of the Court. Counsellors are therefore not rostered for week-end or after-hours duty, and there is no after-hours telephone service for this purpose. Where there is a need for a party to proceedings before the Court to see a counsellor urgently, an expedited appointment can be arranged. (3) Staffing levels for the Family Court are kept continually under review. The number of counsellors has increased from 98 in 1984 to 104 in 1986. I am not aware of any undue delay in any Registry of the Court in a party to proceedings in the Court obtaining an appointment with a counsellor. (Question No. 1648) Senator Morris asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 February 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Education aware of reports that a Japanese group including the Kyoto Institute of Science and Technology has proposed that it will establish a technical college in Sydney as part of a proposed technology exchange centre. (2) Has the Government been involved in any discussions on this proposal, has the expenditure of Commonwealth funds been considered and what effect will this proposal have on current Government programs for TAFE and other tertiary educational establishments. Senator Ryan —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I understand that the broad implications of the proposal have been the subject of some discussion with Commonwealth officers. To proceed further the proposal would appear to require consideration by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Ultimately, however, it is a matter for decision and approval by the State government, as a proposal involving technical/vocational level training. The question of providing Commonwealth funds does not arise. The Commonwealth has previously announced that it will not support completely private institutions. A matter of direct concern to the Commonwealth would be the issue of visa approvals for overseas student entrants to the Institute. Again, as no federal funds are involved, visa approvals can be negotiated if the State government decides to extend recognition to the institute and takes necessary action at the State level to confirm the status of the institute. I do not expect the proposal to have any effect on Commonwealth government programs for TAFE or other tertiary education institutions. (Question No. 1649) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 25 February 1987: When does the Government propose to act to ensure that travel agents in the Australian Capital Territory are subject to the same licensing requirements, including membership of a travel compensation fund, as applies in NSW, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In November 1985 I announced that travel agents licensing legislation would be introduced in the ACT. At this stage it is expected that, subject to other priorities, the necessary legislation will be ready by the end of 1987. (Question No. 1661) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: What progress has been made in the development of a language training centre on Christmas Island. (2) Is it anticipated that such a centre will be operative well before the anticipated opening of the Christmas Island Casino, given that language training could assist the Islanders in obtaining employment at the casino/hotel development. (3) When is it anticipated that a firm decision will be made on the development of such a language training course. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) An English Language Training Centre catering for Christmas Islanders was established on the Island in May 1986 as part of the Government's retraining program to assist islanders into alternative employment. This centre is currently staffed by 12 teachers experienced in `English as a Second Language'. Since its opening the centre has catered for more than 400 islanders with a range of introductory English and job oriented migrant English classes and informal English language learning opportunities. Several organisations have expressed an interest in the development of a privately funded Language Training Centre on Christmas Island for overseas fee paying students. No detailed proposals have yet been received. (2) See (1). (3) See (1). (Question No. 1663) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Can the Minister for Territories advise on whether the Cocos Malay people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands will be joint venturers in the development of hotel facilities proposed for the Islands. (2) What efforts have been made to ensure that the Islands' people take an active role in the development and management of tourism facilities on the Islands, in view of the potential of tourism to provide employment and revenue for the Cocos people. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) The Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council initiated a call for expressions of interest from potential tourism development investors on 16 May 1986. This call stipulated that any development should be a joint venture acceptable to the Cocos Malay community and provide employment and vocational training opportunities for the Cocos Malay community. The principal of the company proposing a tourist development on Direction Island has had several meetings with the Council, the Administrator and the Department of Territories over issues including the community's participation in development and management of the complex. (Question No. 1664) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 17 March 1987: (1) Can the Minister for Territories advise on what language training is available to the people of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (2) What specific efforts have been made to provide language training for adults on the Islands, particularly, in view of the efforts being made to have Malay and English taught to younger people. (3) What efforts will be made to enhance language training programs, which would enable more Cocos Malays to be employed in the tourist industry, in view of the wish of the Cocos people to develop a tourism industry. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) At the Home Island Primary School, formal teaching in both English and Malay begins in Grade 1, with an increasing emphasis on English as pupils pro- gress through school. In the Primary School Division of the West Island School, the Western Australian English syllabus is taught and introductory Indonesian is taught for up to forty-five minutes a week. In the Secondary Division of the West Island School, both English and Indonesian are studied formally, with Cocos Malay students receiving up to one hour per week tuition in English as a second language. (2) As part of the Government's commitment to the social and economic advancement of the Cocos Malay community considerable effort is being made to provide a wide range of language training programs for adults of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. These programs include special instruction in technical English for Cocos Malay apprentices, individual English language tuition for students of various Western Australian external courses, evening classes for adults in both commercial and social English, use of Radio Australia English language programs and the provision of a wide range of English language educational books, audio cassettes and videos available for loan to the Home Island community. (3) Discussions regarding a tourist development at Cocos are still at a preliminary stage, but any proposed development will need to obtain the approval of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Council and provide employment and vocational training opportunities for the Cocos Malay community. Further language training programs will be assessed in that light. For example, future English language programs for adults will increase the emphasis on the use of English in commerce, industry, technology and science. (Question No. 1686) Senator Collard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 19 March 1987: (1) When will the Australian Film Commission be implementing the recommendations of its Subsidised Exhibition Services Report, by Les Rabinowicz, of October 1985, in restoring an Australian National Film Theatre. (2) Will the money identified in that report as having been paid to the Australian Film Institute for National Film Theatre work, but not used for that purpose, be recovered. (3) What safeguards will be incorporated in the new arrangements to safeguard the continuation of Australia wide ``Archival'' screenings. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am advised by the Australian Film Commission that: (1) Following careful consideration, the Commission has decided not to implement the recommendations contained in the Rabinowicz report on Subsidised Exhibition Services. (2) The Commission determined in October 1978 that it would no longer fund both the Australian Film Institute and the National Film Theatre of Australia. An amalgamation of the two organisations was effected in July 1979, with the Institute purchasing all assets, rights and licences of the Film Theatre including the leasehold of offices, Paddington Town Hall Cinema (now the Chauvel Cinema) and the national mailing list. Since the amalgamation, funds formerly directed by the Commission to the Film Theatre have been allocated to the Institute as part of that organisation's General Purpose Grant. A separate amount for Film Theatre screenings has not been identified in the allocation. (3) The Commission provides support for subsidised exhibition in each State either through its funded organisations or for particular programs. No new arrangements are contemplated and decisions are designed to ensure that consistent and comprehensive exhibition services are maintained. (Question No. 1701) Senator Morris asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 24 March 1987: (1) What are the most recent figures for housing loan approvals, both by number and by value. (2) Do these figures indicate that the housing construction industry is exercising price restraint or does the Minister for Housing and Construction believe that excess profit-taking is occurring. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Lending for Housing By all Significant Lenders Australia-February 1987- (ABS data, seasonally adjusted) Number Total Value Average Value $ $ 24,291 1,140.8m 46,960 The number of housing loan approvals in February 1987 was 21 per cent higher than in February 1986. The average loan size was 19 per cent larger than a year earlier. (2) Conclusions as to building costs and profit margins by builders cannot be drawn from figures on lending for housing by all significant lenders. The increase in the average size of housing loans reflects the ready availability of housing finance particularly from savings banks. The bulk of lending has been for previously occupied dwellings, and new house construction activity has been subdued. Under conditions of intense competition among builders, I do not believe that excess profit-taking is occurring.