Wednesday, 16 September 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Australia Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Australia Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from two citizens), Michael Baume (from 153 citizens), MacGibbon (from 1,022 citizens), Puplick (from 39 citizens), Stone (from 14 citizens) and Watson (from 5,702 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 92 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Hamer (from 14 citizens) and MacGibbon (from 11 citizens). To the President and Honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned strongly protest 1987 cuts to ESL programs for adults, conducted by the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) in New South Wales. Evening ESL classes have been cut by 25%. The ESL Correspondence course is to be abolished in a few months time. The English-in-the-Workplace Program has been reduced. Full-time on-arrival courses have been abolished. AMES day centres have had their teaching hours reduced. Community programs have lost teaching hours. We call for: (i) the full and immediate restoration of AMES teaching programs in New South Wales to at least 1986 levels and (ii) a substantial increase in funding to AMES programs in the 1987 budget in view of the recently announced increases in the immigration intake. by Senator Childs (from 361 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 A.C.T. or to their sale in the A.C.T. 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 59 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, (i) are greatly disturbed by the dangers to health posed by passive smoking, and evidence of which is being documented daily by medical authorities around the world; (ii) note that environmental tobacco smoke has been identified as the major pollutant in aeroplane cabins, and that its direct threat to health is recognised in the special leave provisions for flight attendants specifically on grounds of upper respiratory infections; (iii) appreciate the government's undertaking to legislate for smoke-free travel on aeroplanes, but are dismayed at the apparent reluctance to follow up the Minister for Aviation's December announcement with action; and (iv) call upon the government to make smoke-free aeroplane travel a reality without further delay, and to ensure that smoke-free areas which cannot be contaminated by recycled pollutants, are available to all aerodromes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Hamer (from nine citizens), Harradine (from 304 citizens), Reid (from 500 citizens) and Zakharov (from 33 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% 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 1986 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 Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 97 citizens), Reid (from four citizens) and Zakharov (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the metric system and request the Government to restore the imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of the city of Armidale, New South Wales, respectfully showeth: (a) that there is a very limited range of radio services in rural areas; (b) that the introduction of ABC-FM significantly broadens the radio options of rural listeners; (c) that Armidale as a major centre is more isolated from capital cities than most other rural cities and would support and benefit from ABC-FM more than most because of the nature of the town and its population, and most keenly feels its absence; (d) that, as Armidale is classed as an infill area, it will, on current Department of Communications plans, be one of the last areas in Australia to be connected to ABC-FM; (e) that there are no technical barriers to the immediate connection of Armidale to ABC-FM as such connection is not dependent on Band II clearance; (f) that the cost of such connection would form a minute proportion of the moneys being assigned to developing rural radio and television services; (g) that, therefore, early connection of Armidale ABC-FM would involve minimum disruption to overall plans for rural radio and television services while benefiting greatly a significant area of Northern New South Wales; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Department of Communications be asked to arrange for the early connection of Armidale to the ABC-FM service. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 1,789 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully requests that the Australia Card Legislation be rejected because the proposed system: (1) has been demonstrated to have no capacity to stop tax evasion, Social Security fraud, illegal immigration or to recoup the revenue lost through abuse of these systems as was claimed. (2) will impose a large financial impact on Australian citizens, and has been demonstrated by the Parliament's own Joint Committee to be not cost effective. (3) has been shown to have the capacity to actually aid and abet both illegal immigration and organised crime. (4) is designed to cause a great intrusion and disruption to the normal day to day activities of all citizens. (5) does not contain the very necessary barriers to invasion of privacy, and loss of personal liberties. (6) will in both the words of the Government and the HIC be enlarged to encompass far greater uses, and the compilation of much more information on the data base. And your petitioners humbly pray that in the light of the obvious and proven inability of the proposed Australia Card to achieve its stated objectives that the Government explain the reason why it is persisting in reintroducing this legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator MacGibbon (from 2,661 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth opposition to the introduction of any form of national identification system especially a system known as Australia Card. Your Petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should oppose any Legislation designed to impose such a system on the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 250 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled The humble Petition of Citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the World in their efforts to achieve a Nuclear Free South Pacific, and such Decision being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled Stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on Nuclear Vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of Zones of Peace and Nuclear Free Zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Senator Vallentine (from 30 citizens). To the honourable the leader and members of the Senate of Australia: the petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, e.g. petitions, by the formation of a committee to represent public requests. by Senator Vallentine (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled and to the Australian Government: This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that: foreign warships visiting Australian ports give acceptability to the increasing militarization of the Indian and Pacific Oceans; W.A. endures a visit of a foreign warship on average every 1.5 weeks; a situation of de facto ``home-porting'' facilities exists in W.A.; there is increasing citizen concern that nuclear armed/nuclear powered warships put Australian ports and people at risk in many ways. by Senator Vallentine (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: The agreement between the United States of America and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap terminates on 19th October 1986. In the event of war between the United States and the Soviet Union, access by the United States to Pine Gap's facilities makes it a probable nuclear target. The people of Australia are entitled to be consulted through their representatives in Parliament, on any extension or modification of the agreement affecting their lives, security and welfare. Access by all nations to Pine Gap's capacity to monitor and verify compliance with existing and future nuclear limitations treaties could contribute to world peace and security. And your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The agreement between the United States and Australia concerning the Joint Defence Space Research Facility at Pine Gap not be extended beyond October 1986. 2. Public discussion and inquiry be instituted into the feasibility of negotiating a new agreement with the United Nations during the International Year of Peace offering the verifications facilities of the Pine Gap base to all nations. 3. Any agreement concerning the future use of Pine Gap be referred to Parliament for ratification. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned citizens call on the Commonwealth Government to introduce a ban on smoking on flights of 90 minutes or less. This ban should be introduced irrespective of the stand-off attitudes adopted by the airlines at present. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (by 116 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Uranium mining and processing is dangerous to the health and well-being and ecology of the Earth and its citizens, By-products of uranium are toxics for periods of up to 500,000 years, and are an intrinsic part of the production of nuclear weapons, Existing safeguards are inadequate, and are not properly monitored. The policy of the Australian Government permits the entry into Australian territory of vessels and aircraft without the assurance that they are not nuclear powered or armed. Such vessels pose a threat to both the security and well-being of Australia and its citizens. The presence of foreign military and communication bases on Australian soil seriously endangers the health and well-being of Australia and its citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable Senators will take cognisance of the above and take immediate action to remove the above dangers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 42 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Deputy Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —On behalf of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: No. 1 That the following amendments be made to the Standing Orders: (a) Standing Order 33: Leave out ``Standing Orders'', insert ``Procedure''. (b) Standing Order 36a: Leave out paragraph (2), insert the following new paragraph: ``(2) (a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Committee shall consist of six Senators, three being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and three being Senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators. (b) The nominations of the Opposition or any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators shall be determined by agreement between the Opposition and any minority group or groups or Independent Senator or Independent Senators, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, the question as to the representation on the Committee shall be determined by the Senate.''. Paragraph (3): Leave out ``four'', insert ``3''. After paragraph (3), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(3a) The Committee shall elect a Government member as Chairman. ``(3b) The Chairman may from time to time appoint a member of the Committee to be Deputy-Chairman and the member so appointed shall act as Chairman of the Committee at any time there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. ``(3c) In the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote.''. (c) Standing Order 36aa: Leave out paragraph (1), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(1) At the commencement of each Parliament, Standing Committees shall be appointed, and each committee shall have power to confer or sit as a joint committee with a similar committee of the House of Representatives except when the Committee is considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a). ``(1a) Unless otherwise ordered, the Standing Committees shall be as follows: (a) The Standing Committee on Community Affairs; (b) The Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training; (c) The Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (d) The Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration; (e) The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology; (f) The Standing Committee on Infrastructure; and (g) The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.''. After paragraph (3), insert the following new paragraph: ``(3a) The annual Estimates, as contained in the Papers presenting the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure, and the Additional Estimates, as contained in the Papers presenting the Particulars of Proposed Provision for Additional Expenditure, shall on motion be referred to the Standing Committees for examination and report.''. Sub-paragraph (4) (c): After ``Senators'', add: `` : Provided that sub-paragraph (4) (c) shall not apply when a Standing Committee is considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a)''. Paragraph (9): At end of paragraph, add: `` : Provided that, when a Standing Committee is considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a), a Senator may also attend and participate in its deliberations''. At end of paragraph (13), add: `` : Provided that this paragraph shall not apply when a Standing Committee is considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a)''. After paragraph (13), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(13a) A Standing Committee, when considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a), shall sit in open session, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, and may sit during any adjournment or suspension of the sitting of the Senate. ``(13b) Not more than four Standing Committees shall sit simultaneously when considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a). ``(13c) When a Standing Committee is considering the Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a): (a) the Chairman shall, without motion, call on divisions of expenditure in the order decided upon and declare the proposed expenditure open for examination; and (b) explanations may be requested from Ministers of State in the Senate, or officers, relating to the items of expenditure.''. Paragraph (17): At end of paragraph, add: `` : provided that a Hansard report of the proceedings of the Standing Committees when considering Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a) shall be circulated, in manner similar to the daily Senate Hansard, as soon as practicable after each day's proceedings.''. Paragraph 20: At end of paragraph, add: `` : Provided that when Standing Committees have considered Estimates pursuant to paragraph (3a): (a) the Report of a Committee shall be presented to the Senate by the Chairman and, if necessary, may propose the further consideration of any particular items. A reservation by any member of a Committee may be added to the report; and (b) the Reports from the Committees shall be received by the Senate without debate and their consideration deferred until consideration of the Appropriation Bills.''. (d) Delete Standing Order 36ab. (e) Delete Standing Order 38. (f) Standing Order 39: After ``sittings of the Senate'', add: `` : Provided that this Standing Order shall not apply to joint committees established by Resolutions of both Houses of the Parliament or by an Act of the Parliament.''. (g) Standing Order 96: Leave out ``IV. (in the case of a Petition against a return) `That the petition be referred at once to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications;' or V.'', insert ``or IV.''. (h) Standing Order 300: After ``sittings of the Senate'', add: `` : Provided that this Standing Order shall not apply to joint committees established by Resolutions of both Houses of the Parliament.''. (i) Standing Order 301: After ``void'', add: `` : Provided that this Standing Order shall not apply to joint committees established by Resolutions of both Houses of the Parliament or by an Act of the Parliament.''. (j) Standing Order 327: Leave out ``, and shall forthwith refer the same to the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications''. No. 2 - STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES-APPOINTMENT That, in accordance with Standing Order 36a, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances be appointed. No. 3 - STANDING COMMITTEE FOR THE SCRUTINY OF BILLS-APPOINTMENT That, in accordance with Standing Order 36aaa, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills be appointed. No. 4 - STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND STAFFING-APPOINTMENT (1) That the Committee known as the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, constituted by Resolution of the Senate on 25 March 1982, be re-constituted, under the same terms and with the same functions and powers as varied by Resolution of 11 May 1983. (2) That the Committee have power to consider and use for its purposes Minutes of Evidence and records of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing appointed in previous Parliaments. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 5 - SELECT COMMITTEE ON ANIMAL WELFARE-APPOINTMENT (1) That the Committee known as the Select Committee on Animal Welfare, constituted by Resolutions of the Senate on 16 and 17 November 1983, be re-constituted, under the same terms and with the same functions and powers. (2) That the Committee have power to consider and use for its purposes the Minutes of Evidence and records of the Select Committee on Animal Welfare appointed in previous Parliaments. (3) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 6-STANDING COMMITTEES (CONTINGENT ON THE SENATE AGREEING TO AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS 36aa and ab)- (1) That, in accordance with Standing Order 36aa, the following Standing Committees be appointed: (a) Community Affairs; (b) Employment, Education and Training; (c) Environment, Recreation and the Arts; (d) Finance and Public Administration; (e) Industry, Science and Technology; (f) Infrastructure; and (g) Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (2) That, pursuant to Standing Order 36aa (3a), unless otherwise ordered, the Standing Committees consider the Proposed Expenditure in relation to Departments as follows: Community Affairs Aboriginal Affairs Community Services and Health Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Social Security Veterans' Affairs Employment, Education and Training Employment, Education and Training Environment, Recreation and the Arts Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Finance and Public Administration Parliament Finance Prime Minister and Cabinet Treasury Industry, Science and Technology Industry, Technology and Commerce Industrial Relations Primary Industries and Energy Infrastructure Transport and Communications Administrative Services Legal and Constitutional Affairs Attorney-General's (3) That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the following matters, referred to Legislative and General Purpose Committees on the days indicated during previous Sessions and not disposed of by those Committees, be referred under the same terms to the Standing Committees indicated: Matter Standing Committee Retirement income systems (6 September 1983) Community Affairs The education of gifted and talented children (17 October 1985) Employment, Education and Training The potential of the Kakadu National Park region (9 October 1985) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Capacity of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau and Australia's effectiveness in relation to the assessment of environmental impact of proposed projects (19 February 1987) Environment, Recreation and the Arts Statutory Authorities-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies established pursuant to Commonwealth statute (6 October 1977, as amended 8 October 1986) The proposed sale of the Australian Dairy Corporation shareholding in P.T. Australian Indonesian Milk Inc. (P.T. Indomilk) Finance and Public Administration Non-Statutory bodies-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of bodies for which the Commonwealth is wholly or partly responsible, being bodies which are not departments (or parts of departments) nor statutory authorities (or sub-bodies of statutory authorities) nor incorporated companies nor incorporated associations (17 November 1983, as amended 8 October 1986) Finance and Public Administration Companies and associations-The continuing oversight of the establishment, operation, administration and accountability of incorporated companies and incorporated associations owned by the Commonwealth and of those in which the Commonwealth holds a major or substantial interest (8 October 1986) Finance and Public Administration Certain aspects of Australia's Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation (13 June 1986) Industry, Science and Technology Continuing oversight of the implementation of reports of the Law Reform Commission (24 September 1981) Legal and Constitutional Affairs The operation and administration of the Freedom of Information legislation (29 November 1985) Legal and Constitutional Affairs Continuing oversight of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Special Reports (22 August 1986) Legal and Constitutional Affairs The nature, function, ambit and adequacy of income tax rulings issued by the Commissioner of Taxation and the process by which these rulings are formulated and disseminated (27 May 1987) Legal and Constitutional Affairs (2) That- (a) The following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs: The comparison between private hospitals conducted for profit, non-profit private hospitals and public hospitals in respect of the type and frequency of services provided and waiting lists for these services, with particular reference to discretionary services; (b) For the purpose of its inquiry and report the Committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes constituted in previous parliaments; and (c) The foregoing paragraphs, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. No. 7-SPECIAL ESTIMATES COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Contingent on the Senate agreeing to amendments to Standing Orders 36aa and ab)- (1) That a Special Estimates Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be appointed, to consist of Senators appointed as members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the annual Estimates, as contained in the Papers presenting the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure, and the Additional Estimates, as contained in the Papers presenting the Particulars of Proposed Provision for Additional Expenditure, referred to the Committee on Motion. (2) That the provisions of Standing Order 36aa, insofar as they relate to the reference of Estimates to Standing Committees pursuant to paragraph (3a), shall apply to the Standing Committee established under paragraph (1) of this Resolution. (3) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Special Estimates Committee consider the Proposed Expenditure in relation to Departments as follows: Defence Foreign Affairs and Trade (4) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (a) That submissions opposing the introduction of the Australia Card were presented to the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card by such organizations as: (i) the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission, (ii) the Social Responsibilities Commission of the Anglican Diocese of Perth, (iii) the Australian Pensioners Federation, Newcastle, (iv) the Australian Retired Persons' Association, Melbourne, (v) the Combined Community Legal Centres Group, Marrackville (vi) the Interagency Migration Group, Parramatta; and (b) that opposition was also expressed by various trade unions and Councils for civil liberties and believes that this gives the lie to Federal Government claims that the Australia Card will be particularly beneficial for low income groups, the poor and the disadvantaged. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the presence in Fremantle last week of 17 United States warships with over 200 nuclear weapons between them, described as the biggest invasion of Western Australia since the Second World War; (b) notes, too, the constant reference to ``Rest and Recreation'' for 14 000 sailors and marines which is a polite euphemism for the physical and sexual requirements of a large number of young men who have been at sea for 5 months; (c) commends the Australian peace movement for non-violent opposition to the visits of these nuclear armed warships to our ports which represent Australia's support for nuclear war fighting strategies of the US Government; (d) condemns the failure of the authorities to provide the citizens of Western Australia with an adequate Port Safety Plan that would give guidance in the event of a nuclear accident; and (e) regrets the refusal of the Commonwealth Go-vernment to follow the example of New Zealand in banning nuclear warships from our ports. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) deplores the failure of the Hawke Federal Government to act to resolve the continuing series of crises in the delivery of health services which residents of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) have suffered; and (b) condemns the failure of the Government to have implemented the ruling of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down on 7 May 1987 which ordered that a new pay and career structure for nurses be in place by 10 August 1987. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the absence in existing legislation of effective means of ensuring compliance with the decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; (b) notes the repeated acknowledgement by the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) that the existing compliance provisions are out of date and largely irrelevant; (c) notes that the lack of effective enforcement provisions enables trade unions to defy directions of the Commission; (d) acknowledges the need for speedy access to the ordinary courts to achieve redress against deliberate defiance of Commission decisions; and (e) condemns the Federal Government for its failure to proceed with its announced intention to introduce legislation for effective enforcement provisions. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —I give notice that, 14 sitting days after today, I shall move: 1. That the Customs Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rule 1987 No. 72 and made under the Customs Act 1901 be disallowed. 2. That the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) (Amendment) Ordinance 1987 as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 16 of 1987 made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 191, be disallowed. 3. That Public Service Board Determination No. 21 of 1987 and made under the Public Service Act 1922, be disallowed. Senator COONEY —by leave-Some matters were before the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances prior to the dissolution of Parliament. Although the Committee has not yet been appointed, the time for giving protective notice of disallowance regarding three matters expires today or on Friday. It is a time honoured practice in the Senate that, in such circumstances, a senior member of the former Committee shall give notice to protect the new Committee's interests. Under the Standing Orders these notices may be taken over by the new Committee when it is appointed. I thank the Senate, and I assure you, Mr President, this was not a policy speech. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the debacle that has developed over the surveillance of our northern coastline because of the Federal Government's repeated refusal to heed the warning of the National and Liberal Party's to reconsider the letting of the coastal surveillance contracts; (b) condemns Queensland Senator Reynolds' description of the coastwatch contract as a trivial matter, especially in the light of the widespread public concern in Queensland that Labor mismanagement has jeopardised effective surveillance against illegal fishing, drug importation and importation of diseased livestock; and (c) condemns the Labor Government for failing to call tenders for the surveillance of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia's most magnificent natural attraction, and thus risking a repeat of the current coastwatch fiasco. Motion (by Senator Michael Baume) agreed to: That there be laid on the Table of the Senate answers to questions relating to the Parliament House Construction Authority, which were asked during the proceedings of Estimates Committee E and which the then Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), by letter dated 1 May 1987 to the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), refused to answer, notwithstanding the expressed willingness of officers to provide written answers. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.12) —The Opposition is agreeable to dealing cognately with the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 and also to dealing with the statement which was put down yesterday by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, although there may well be further opportunities for debate of that statement in this place. The Bills relate to what Senator Button described yesterday as the most far-reaching reshaping of the Federal machinery of government and of public administration in our history. He went on to say that the number of departments has been reduced from 28 to 18, providing scope for savings through economies of scale and the removal of overlap and duplication across many areas of hitherto separate bureaucratic units. The legislation, therefore, which touches in only a small way upon this major reorganisation, is nonetheless important in that we have had a very substantial revision of the Public Service of this country and no doubt that will have a very great effect on the way Australia is governed. Administrative Arrangements Legislation The Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No.2) 1987 expands the number of Ministers which can be appointed by the Government from 27 to 30. The Opposition will oppose that Bill for reasons which I will explain during this speech. The other Bill, the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987, makes machinery changes-changes which relate to the fact that the Government has appointed more than one Minister to a department. There are changes to the Acts Interpretation Act which to this point has been written on the basis of there being one Minister per department. In addition, the second Bill makes amendments to the Public Service Act. This is the first stage of amendments necessary to abolish the Public Service Board and replace it with a commissioner who will have independent statu- tory authority for the policy aspects of recruitment, promotion, mobility, discipline and retirement within the Public Service. We have these items of legislation with respect to the second Bill which makes a number of machinery changes which contribute to the major re-organisation that has been brought forward. We will move for there to be some committee exam- ination of this Bill. We will do that because we believe there exists in the Public Service at the moment considerable confusion about the effect of some of the Government's changes and a great deal of concern among the public servants who serve this country about the precise meaning of what has been achieved by the Government. In addition, the Government has claimed that there will be savings and, indeed, it has predicted that there will be a reduction of some 3,000 in the Public Service as a result of these changes. Yet there has been no detail provided to the Parliament on how those savings will be achieved. There are doubts among the Opposition that the Government has, in fact, proceeded to deal with this matter in the best way possible. Indeed, we have some doubts about some of the functional groupings which have been made by the Government and we would like to see those examined by the Parliament. It is our hope that the Senate will agree to a committee examination of these changes on the basis that the changes are so major that something more than a mere announcement of the Parliament is warranted. That should not cause any short term embarrassment to the Government because in the statement which was made yesterday by both the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Leader of the Government in this place they reported that the arrangements have been in place for seven weeks. They claim that the arrangements are working well. Since the arrangements have been in place and working for seven weeks without this legislation, there can be no suggestion that any delay in dealing with the legislation would in any way sabotage the current operation of government or put at risk the proper and orderly administration of this country. Of course, the Opposition would not wish to do that. But it is quite clear, as the arrangements are already in place, that there is no risk in there being some period of examination of this legislation by a Senate committee. I have already indicated the reason that we want this committee examination. We think there is confusion, concern and doubts about the savings, and we have serious doubts about some of the groupings which the Government has proposed. Some look very odd indeed. We find that Local Government has gone to Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I think most Australians who are involved in local government would say there is no apparent natural grouping between the function of Local Government and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Transport matters are complex and major and have been brought together with Communications. I think there are issues both as to the suitability of the fit and as to the volume of work which is imposed upon the Ministers, particularly the Minister who is principally responsible for that departmental grouping, Senator Gareth Evans. It is probably fair to say that there are no two areas more in need of reform and change in Australia if we are to develop a modern and productive economy than the fields of transport and communications. It would appear to the Opposition that there are very real risks of ministerial overload and resulting incapacity to effect some of the essential changes because of the grouping of those functions. We find, under the tutelage of Mr John Brown, a ministry comprising the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. One would have to say that there are some oddities about that grouping. Some of the Territories' residents might say that they do not particularly lie naturally within that grouping of ministries. Other matters need examination, such as the precise legal status of Associate Secretaries and the ongoing arrangements with respect to the different positions which have been created and so on, but I do not wish to canvass those matters in this debate. Rather, there is ample need for a more careful consideration by this Parliament of what the Government is putting forward. For example, the Government has indicated that it will abolish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. We are left almost completely in the dark as to how the Commonwealth's responsibilities in Aboriginal affairs will in fact be carried out under these new arrangements. There are a host of reasons why the Opposition believes it is important that we should move the amendment which I think has been circulated in my name and which proposes that the second Bill, the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987, should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which of course is not yet in place. The amendment requires that: the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report, upon the establishment of that committee or, if a committee of that name is not established, to a committee specified in a subsequent resolution. The main matters which I wish to raise in debating this legislation today are what I see as the most notable features of what the Government has done in this matter. The first is that it has substantially copied what the Opposition first proposed in 1984 with respect to the administrative reform. Secondly, I want to comment on the obvious duplicity shown by the Government in the debate on these issues over recent years, particularly before the last election. I remind the Senate of what the Opposition proposed in 1984 with respect to public administration. Under the heading `Functional Organisation of Ministry and Departments', we said that the key factors were: the need to increase the capacity for Cabinet Ministers to concentrate on priorities and set the course of Government; they need to improve effective co-ordination of key policy areas and to change the present system of competing Departments working against each other; the need to improve the efficiency of the administrative functions of Departments, especially when this can lead to cost savings. We went on, in a series of specific recommendations, to say: Leaner, more efficient Government would result from a consolidation of existing Departments into twelve major Departments of State (including the Cabinet Office) led by 12 Cabinet Ministers; including the Prime Minister. Cabinet Ministers would be responsible for interrelated areas of policy. Most Cabinet Ministers would have one or more Junior Ministers reporting to them and each being responsible for a group of programs allocated to their departments. While under the Constitution, it is necessary for each Minister to be responsible for a specific area of policy, the Prime Minister's Administrative Orders can require a group of Ministers to work for a Member of the Cabinet. We said: The objectives of the organisational arrangement would be to relieve the Cabinet Ministers of major day-to-day administrative responsibilities for individual programs, and thus ensure there was time for their primarly role of shaping policy priorities, developing initiatives, identifying potential problems, evaluating policy implementation and participating in the full range of Cabinet work. We said: Groupings of existing Departments and functions within the new group Cabinet structure would be designed to minimise the current inter-Departmental conflicts caused by demarcation and accept the reality that many programs involve more than one Department. I suppose that it ought to be a matter of satisfaction for the Opposition that, three years after the Opposition announced that approach to the organisation of government, we find the Prime Minister saying that he had decided to recommend to the Governor-General major changes to the structure of Commonwealth administration. He said: The changes are aimed at achieving substantial enhancement of the decision-making process and at removing overlap and duplication of functions. In summary, the changes will substantially reduce the number of Commonwealth departments to achieve administrative efficiencies and savings, better policy co-ordination and improved budget processes; enhanced ministerial control of departments by moving to a 2-level ministerial structure, each Cabinet minister being responsible for one of 16 large portfolios supported in most cases by one or more non-Cabinet ministers responsible for specific parts of the Cabinet minister's portfolio, or assisting across the range of functions. I do not have time in this debate to draw more fully on what we announced in 1984 and put out in more detail in 1987, and the close parallels which can be drawn with what the Prime Minister announced on 14 July 1987. It is a source of some satisfaction to see the outlines which were developed and promoted by the Opposition being adopted by the Government. But we find extraordinary duplicity and dishonesty on the part of the Government in discussion about these issues, particularly prior to the recent election. We find, for example, that Ministers such as the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, went into the Canberra-Queanbeyan area and threatened that the changes advocated by the Opposition: . . . would cause a depression of 1930s magnitude, home values would collapse as thousands of people were forced to leave the region- that is, the Canberra-Queanbeyan region- in an attempt to find work elsewhere. As always, Queanbeyan would be hit first, hardest and longest. We had a threat that people who owned homes in this area would see their homes losing 30 to 40 per cent of their value. That was a particularly good example of the level of debate which was encouraged by the Labor Party on these major administrative reforms which it trumpeted three days after the election. There was plenty of evidence of that sort of scare campaign in so many areas of the recent election campaign. When one looks at the Prime Minister's contribution, one gets a quite horrifying picture of duplicity which is totally unworthy of somebody who holds the highest elected office in this country. In the week before the election was held the Prime Minister said that he was prepared to look at the sorts of changes which had been advocated by the Opposition. He said that no recommendations on this matter had been received from the Block inquiry. A matter of days before the election he said that no recommendations had been received. Senator Button —Are you suggesting that that is untrue? Senator CHANEY —No decisions had been taken. We then have a situation where an election is held on the basis that the Government is prepared to receive recommendations and prepared to look at these matters, but with no decisions taken and no recommendations received. I have been interrupted by Senator Button, who is at the table, asking me whether I am suggesting that this is untrue. I hope that Senator Button will tell us the truth of this matter because we had the Prime Minister on 5 July this year denying that the Government had a secret agenda involving plans to slash the number of departments. In other words there was no agenda in the Australian Labor Party for this reduction in the number of Government departments. Less than a week before the election there was no secret agenda. The attempts by Liberals, including Senator Reid and Mr David Connolly, to get the Labor Party to disclose its agenda for change were completely unsuccessful. The Government had no secret agenda involving plans to slash the number of departments. One can only look at the evidence that is available-that is, that there was a clear statement by the Prime Minister a matter of days before the election. Of course, the evidence is that three days after the election he announced major changes to the structure of the administration of the Commonwealth which have now been put in place. I simply want to make the point that whilst the Opposition has, over the past three years, consistently supported streamlining of Commonwealth administration and the making of substantial changes to improve the government of this country, there has been a refusal by the Labor Party to enter into honest and open debate on this matter. Instead, a refuge in scare tactics and distortion has meant that there has been no sensible political debate on these issues at all prior to the election which is, of course, the important time. I would like to express my personal contempt for that approach which will no doubt continue whilst it is blessed with political success and whilst the media of this country are prepared to accept a situation where politicians are positively admired for saying one thing and doing another. This is a blatant example of the corruption of political debate in this country. I would like to express my contempt and abhorrence of it. I think it is wrong and I think it is damaging us. In fact, we find an extraordinary similarity of pattern in so many of the major debates which are of significance to the future of this country. I remind you, Mr Deputy President, of the debate on privatisation where statements were made by Ministers such as the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister. They were contemptuous of the proposals that the Opposition put forward in a most careful way on the need to look to privatisation, in particular as a means of encouraging a more efficient economy and competition in our economy. These were serious matters put forward in a considered way with detailed principles being laid out in our `Policies for Business' document published in July of last year. We had from the Labor Party a continued campaign of vilification and of trying to strike fear in the hearts of every employee of a statutory authority. Once again that has been a perversion of debate on an issue which is of major significance to this country. The success or failure of the ministerial arrangements to which I have referred, in particular in transport and communications which are of fundamental importance to the welfare of this country, will depend upon the Government being able to achieve greater efficiency in those areas. The reality is that if the Opposition were prepared to distort the debate in the way that the Labor Party has we could do much to frustrate and thwart reforms which are desperately needed in this country. As an Opposition we have chosen not to do that. I think it is a criminal shame that there has been so little acknowledgment in the Press of the distortion of debate which has occurred and the destruction which has been wrought. I refer to privatisation. I will not repeat the many quotes which are available, particularly during the 1985 period. These quotes come not only from the Commonwealth but also from the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, and the Western Australian Premier, Mr Burke. I despise their dishonest approach which I believe is a very poor reflection on them. Senator Button —You ran away from the issue yourselves. Senator CHANEY —The Leader of the Government says that we ran away from the issue. I invite him to look at what we published in our policies from July of last year which involved the principles that would apply to privatisation and our commitment to the privatisation of Trans Australia Airlines, of Qantas Airways Ltd, of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and a whole series of bodies which we indicated would add to the economic efficiency of this country. The whole process of political debate is important. If it is conducted on the basis that one can lie with impunity, democracy is corrupted in this country. It is all very well for members of the Australian Labor Party to smirk because they have had electoral success on the basis of lies, but I say to them that they are prepared to damage this country in a very political, totally cynical way. We saw the same thing in the wages policy debate before the election. We have consistently said that real wage rises will depend upon there being real increases in productivity and wealth in this country. We saw both the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) offering-I have so often heard Labor's gibes about fistfuls of dollars-wage rises that would come under the Labor Party without regard to the question of productivity. The Prime Minister backed off in that debate some weeks before the election, but we saw again during the campaign a perversion of the debate on an issue which is of fundamental importance to this country. We saw exactly the same thing with respect to the lead-up to this Budget. We were told by the Treasurer that a balanced budget was not an appropriate thing for Australia. He claimed in the third or fourth line of his Budget Speech last night that that is what he has achieved. Whether he has achieved it we will debate elsewhere. I raised those matters because I believe that, in terms of tackling the fundamental problems which this country faces and which cannot be masked under the recent benign response to the Budget-the reality of our external debt, the reality of our poor levels of investment and the reality of the stiff competition we face-there is a need for a greater degree of honesty in debate in this place, in this country, in the House of Representatives and in politics generally if we are to succeed in tackling those problems in an effective way. I also want to raise in this debate in the same context the sort of smear campaign which is frequently indulged in by this Government against anybody who seeks to oppose it. We have seen this at both State and Federal levels. Over the last few days we have seen it with respect to the President of the Liberal Party of Australia in Western Australia, Mr Keith Simpson, where there was a leakage to the Government and a leakage by the Government of his personal financial affairs when there is no suggestion of any impropriety. An attempt has been made to smear him in a way which is disgraceful and typical of the attitude adopted by this Government; that is, that if one pokes one's head up against the parapet and opposes the Government one will be smeared and put upon. We saw a bit of this attitude yesterday with respect to Mr Des Moore. Mr Des Moore, who has written critically about this Government's economic policy, has had his affairs paraded before the Senate. Whether or not we have the full story we will never know. All we know is that someone who served the Commonwealth for 28 years, who has now resigned from the Commonwealth and is writing articles and papers which are critical of this Government's approach to economic policy, is smeared by the Minister for Finance over events of his departure from the Public Service. Again I regard with contempt that approach to politics by the Labor Party, and I believe that it should be thoroughly condemned by everybody in this chamber. We oppose the legislation that will permit the appointment of extra Ministers because we do not believe it is necessary to have 30 Ministers. The expansion of the size of the Ministry is clearly and simply to accommodate the internal political difficulties of the Labor Party and its factional disputes. We saw the manner in which the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, was treated and the tokenism that she now represents in the odd selection of tasks that she has. We saw the factional leaders of the Labor Party, Senator Robert Ray and Senator Richardson, deliver the spoils of office to themselves to the exclusion of Senator Tate and to the concern of the Prime Minister, who saw that certain interests that he wanted represented in the Ministry would no longer be represented. All of that is a matter of public record. The subsequent rescue of Senator Tate-the Opposition expresses some approval about it-- Senator Puplick —Assisted by Premier Gray. Senator CHANEY —My colleague interjects that he was assisted by Premier Gray-so that Tasmania would be represented may well have been reasonable but it is not something that requires an addition to the size of the Ministry. The fact that there was the Bolkus-Reynolds sideways shuffle is again not a matter which requires the expenditure of additional taxpayers' funds to solve the Labor Party's problems. Thinking about Senator Bolkus and Senator Reynolds, I was reminded of Sammy Davis Jr who was asked before the days of affirmative action what his handicap on the golf course was. He said, `You are talking to a one-eyed Catholic Jew. You do not have to talk to me about handicaps'. I wondered why the appointment to the Ministry of a woman from Queensland was superior to the appointment of an Australian of Greek origin from South Australia. It was that sort of nonsense which led to the Government decision to require a larger Ministry. We believe that that is a quite unnecessary burden on Australian taxpayers and we will oppose and vote against the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. We hope the Australian Democrats will join us. We do not believe that the public should pay for the ALP's games or that the expansion in the size of the Ministry has anything to do with the welfare of Australia. It has to do with the welfare of the Australian Labor Party. With respect to the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987, I move: Leave out all words after `That', insert: `the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report, upon the establishment of that committee or, if a committee of that name is not established, to a committee specified in a subsequent resolution'. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.36) —The Australian Democrats would like to address a few particular points to the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987. Perhaps the fundamental point is that although there may be arguments for and against the legislation, particularly the first Bill which relates to an increase in the size of the Ministry, the Australian Democrats believe that that increase is the prerogative of the executive arm of government. The Australian Democrats in this chamber have, I think, a reputation for opposing Executive interference in the legitimate activities of the Parliament-the legislature. Certainly for a party such as ours to interfere in Executive changes of this type which, as I will demonstrate later, are on a relatively minor scale would, I think, place us in the position of being hard pressed to argue the consistency of principle. It is very important that we keep these responsibilities in mind. I am sure that very often in session, as in past sessions, it will be necessary for us to argue the responsibility of the Parliament as a whole in the face of the Executive wanting to override that in one way or another. The Opposition's intention of opposing and voting against the Ministers of State Amendment Bill is not supported by the Australian Democrats for that reason in particular. That is not to say that we do not have concerns but I point out that this is not the first time that this Act has been amended. As honourable senators will know, it has been amended a great many times. This is the first time the Ministry has reached 30, although it is not the first time that ministerial duties have been undertaken by such a high number. In 1971, there were 27 Ministers plus six assistant Ministers which, of course, totals 33, and that was under a coalition government. That was in a total Parliament of 185 members, which means that the percentage of Ministers and assistant Ministers was 17.8 per cent. In 1982 there were 26 Ministers and three Parliamentary Secretaries, 29 in all, in a Parliament of 189 members, which constituted 15.3 per cent. In the present Parliament of 224 members the Ministry, upon the passage of this legislation, will total 30 but that will represent only 13.4 per cent of the size of the Parliament. So some of the arguments which the Opposition puts forward pale in the face of those figures. Amongst those amendments to the Ministers of State Act to which I referred, the amendments which have taken place under coalition governments are interesting. In 1956 there were 22 Ministers. In 1964 the number was raised to 25, in 1967 to 26 and in 1971 to 27. So the Opposition has a record of increasing the size of the Ministry and on each occasion of having been able to argue its case. As I have demonstrated, there are arguments to the contrary. In relative terms the increase in the size of the Ministry to 30 in this instance is not able to be portrayed as extravagant. We must consider the Ministers of State Amendment Bill and the increase in the size of the Ministry to 30 also in terms of the overall intention of the Government to reform and reconstruct the whole of the administrative structure. It is important that we do not look at this Bill in isolation. It seems a bit surprising that the Opposition is prepared to vote against this Bill and yet is taking a much softer stance on the second Bill, which is integral to the whole situation. It is interesting to speculate on whether the Opposition is prepared to back up its words with actions. I wonder whether the Opposition, to demonstrate the strength of feeling which is going to cause its members to vote against this Bill, will be taking three of its members off its front bench, either three of its rotating Ministers, who might by now be getting giddy, or perhaps some of those who are, or who hope they are, in a more stationary position. Or is the Opposition, as usual, going to take what it sees as the high moral ground, saying one thing and doing another? Quite a feature of what Senator Chaney had to say to us this morning was that he is appalled by the way the Government has so often said one thing and then another. That is a case of people in glass houses throwing stones. Even in the last session of the Parliament we experienced so many instances of the Opposition saying one thing and then doing another. Some examples come to mind very quickly. We heard a great hue and cry from the Opposition benches about the implementation of tertiary fees. Yet the Opposition supported the Government in their introduction. We heard bleating from the Opposition, and we saw it in the Press, about the imposition of taxes on fruit juice and milk and the increase in the tax on wine. But there was nothing in the way of an Opposition vote, and no action to back up its words. The National Party does not come out of this too well either, having in its own self-interest joined the Government to increase the size of the Parliament and having voted with the Government in its deal to turn over the ownership of Australia's media to a few very powerful and very friendly media bosses. There are other instances, such as the watering down of the access to freedom of information by members of the community. Although making noises about the legislation, the Opposition chose not to oppose it. So Senator Chaney is on pretty thin ice when he expresses moral outrage about politicians saying one thing and doing another. In this place one's vote counts much more than what one says. Some petulance was displayed in the face of the move the Government is making to restructure the administration of government on the basis that this is something the Opposition wanted to do itself. The Opposition ought by now to be used to this Government taking initiatives which make it practically turn green with envy. One such initiative is the deregulation of the financial system. Who brought in the foreign banks? It was not a nice solid, conservative coalition government; it was a nice solid, conservative Labor Government. Who introduced the tertiary fees to which I have already referred? Who has been putting the squeeze on the welfare sector for all of these years? All of these initiatives have made the people on my right practically turn green with envy. Another initiative is the policy which is now in place to mine and sell uranium, even to France which chooses to conduct nuclear tests in our own backyard. We still have the issue of privatisation to come. Again, I am sure pea green will be the colour of the people on my right as the debate goes on and as this conservative Labor Government also moves in that area. The Opposition ought to be used to this by now. From time to time we are seeing a sop to the people in the community who have suggested to the Australian Labor Party that they are not prepared to get used to some of the initiatives it takes. Whilst we, the Australian Democrats, are still here we will oppose this kind of exercise both in what we say and how we vote. As I have said, the National Party does not come out too well in this kind of comparison either. I refer to the restructuring of the Ministry. These two Bills need to be looked at together. We are not supporting the Opposition-as Senator Chaney had hoped-in its move against the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, nor are we supporting the reference of the Administrative Arrangements Bill to a committee. Of course, there are concerns about the Administrative Arrangements Bill which are wide ranging. Although we have been told by the Prime Minister's office that the cost of the increase in ministerial salaries will be about $98,000, most of us look upon that with a grain of salt. However, I think it is quite clear that the savings throughout the Public Service under the changed arrangements administered by the new ministerial system will be substantial. That is greatly desired although it will amount to some $8m, we are told, in this financial year and $16.5m in 1988-89. That is something which has yet to be shown. Nevertheless, the recommendations of the report by the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit of Proposed Successor Arrangements of the Public Service Board-the Block report-in substance give some hope that this will happen. There is a strong argument for more direct ministerial responsibility. Anyone who has seen Yes, Minister will agree on the need to have a well-informed, strategically placed group of Ministers able-if they can-to guide and control their departments. However, there are some concerns. The statement made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) yesterday provided details of the ministerial arrangements and responsibilities. Some of those concerns have been highlighted. One concern is that some confusion might arise from those responsibilities. I understand that concern to be one which has caused the Opposition to want to refer the legislation to a committee. In some specific instances this problem is clearly evident. For instance, the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, is designated as being the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and for the Bicentenary. That is quite clear but it is followed by another designation which says, `and generally across the portfolio'. That is not a clear definition of the division of responsibility. That may become a problem. As I said in my opening remarks, this is a matter for the executive arm of Government to decide. If it comes unstuck it will be on the Government's head. It will be its problem and in due course it will go to the people to see whether they have a concern about it. Another example of a fairly fuzzy definition in the arrangements of Ministers is seen in the arrangements under the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Technology, Senator Button, where we have the Assisting Minister for Science and Small Business, Mr Barry Jones. Beneath the designation of his responsibilities is the statement that two Ministers will work together in various areas which are listed. Again, it is a fairly fuzzy definition of the division of responsibility. The Minister for Trade Negotiations, Mr Duffy, has what appears to be a confusing range of responsibilities which go beyond the super ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to which he is attached, to the Industry, Technology and Commerce ministry and the Primary Industries and Energy ministry. These concerns have been raised in the context that when it comes to the need for the definition of ministerial responsibility there may be problems. Another issue which has been of concern to some people is the creation of super ministries. Whilst it might give Ministers a better strategic placing, it may also have the regrettable effect of perhaps submerging some areas of ministerial responsibility which are seen in the day to day context as being more important and more weighty. I have in mind here areas such as consumer affairs and the arts. For instance, one can see how issues in the areas covered by the super ministries might be seen to be less important perhaps because they are not handled by the senior Minister or because they are mixed up in a grab-bag of other portfolio responsibilities. In this time of economic stringency, in this time of gung-ho economic decision making, based very much on financial and economic benefits, the Australian Democrats would be very concerned if areas such as consumer affairs and the arts were given less significance in the minds of the Ministers involved. I turn now to particular concerns the Australian Democrats have with the rearrangement. With the abolition of the Public Service Board-as the legislation is before us-goes the abolition of specific responsibility for equal employment opportunity within the Public Service as a whole. That responsibility under the Government's legislation is devolved to departmental heads who, unfortunately, have no track record to give any confidence in the area of equal employment opportunity. The Democrats believe that the Equal Employment Opportunity Unit must be kept intact within the new Public Service Commission. I propose to move an amendment at the committee stage of this legislation. An appropriate central unit within the Public Service Commission is necessary because it involves much more than the simple monitoring process which has been outlined, particularly in the Minister's statement yesterday. More than monitoring oversight is needed. To our credit, we have in recent times passed significant sex discrimination and equal opportunity legislation. Along with a number of groups in the community we think that to abolish or water down the equal employment opportunity provisions which come under the Public Service Board would be a retrograde step. More than simple oversight is needed. A central agency is needed, not just to monitor and co-ordinate implementation, but also to undertake, for instance, specialised testing and recruitment of Aboriginals and people with disabilities, to undertake overall statistical analysis to develop a standard Service-wide policy on issues such as sexual harassment and to provide a central reference and resource for equal employment opportunity. It seems somewhat ironic that this move has been made. I hope that the Government will look seriously at the amendment which I will propose. The Government itself, as I have said, has been instrumental in recent times in the passage of far-reaching legislation, which has been strongly supported by the Australian Democrats, in the area of equal opportunity. Mr Block seemed to see no need for a well co-ordinated and focused attack on discrimination, but I think all of us know that this is still necessary against discrimination in all of its forms. The measures in the legislation before us really leave the Government without an effective means of achieving these goals which it has worked on and stated so strongly in the past. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself sent a message via Public Service Board bulletin No. 76 in April this year from which I would like to quote. He said: All Australians know of my Government's commitment to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)-a commitment based on the belief that Equal Employment Opportunity is a matter of justice. Certainly, who could disagree with that? In his message via the Public Service Board bulletin the Prime Minister pointed to his Government's commitment to `equity in employment and the delivery of government services' which, he said, is guaranteed. He said too-and this was in only April of this year: The aim of our Equal Employment Opportunity program is unchanged-that is to eliminate discrimination in the work place and create an environment in which all Australians have a fair chance to compete for jobs and careers in the public service, develop their full potential and contribute to a more effective and efficient management of government business. As I said, I hope that the Government will look very seriously at the amendment which the Australian Democrats will move at the committee stage-an amendment which we have designed to ensure that the new Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board will have on it a member whose specific responsibility is equal employment opportunity. The Board will include a person specifically approved by the union movement and one who is specifically to have demonstrated expertise in the area of private industry. The Government's commitment to equal employment opportunity should not be downgraded or watered down at this time when, because we still have an unemployment level of around 8 per cent-and amongst young people of almost a quarter of their number-people are unemployed for longer periods and find it more difficult to get jobs. It is a time when it is very important that the Government in particular, through its Public Service, take a strong stand and set a very good and strong example in the area of equal employment opportunity. It is a matter of great regret to the Australian Democrats that both the Labor Government and the Liberal-National Opposition appear to have accepted the plateau of 8 per cent unemployment. It is not a matter of public debate any more. It is not something that surfaced or was particularly addressed in the Budget yesterday. It is not something that the Australian Democrats are prepared to accept. We must remember that, amongst that 8 per cent unemployed, those who find it most difficult to find employment are those who for one reason or another suffer some disadvantage. It is only through strong continuing action in the area of equal employment opportunity that we can ensure that we do not add to the disadvantage of those people, not all of whom, of course, are in minority groups. Women, quite significantly, of course, are not a minority group; we are still in the majority, but this is still a group which suffers in the whole work market-place. Women are still not earning on average anything like the same figures as men. They are still not covered as well, for instance, by superannuation; they still do not have adequate access to child care arrangements. They still do not feature in the high levels of employment but are clustered in low status, low-paid employment. If only for women, I would argue very strongly for the amendment which the Australian Democrats will propose. It is not, of course, only for women; it is for a whole range of categories of people-from Aboriginal people through to the disabled of all kinds-who for one reason or another need this kind of backup and support and this kind of example from a government whose past record in this area is to be commended. As I have said, this move-the increase in the Ministry and the changed arrangements in the Public Service-is not one which anyone can guarantee will work. Aspects of the recommendations of the Block report seem to us to meet the need for Ministers to have a very clear and direct oversight in their areas of responsibility, and we believe that it is the Government's prerogative to make these decisions. One point about the new changed ministerial arrangements that we believe could be borne in mind is that there is in fact an advantage of a political nature in having a super-Minister and assisting Minister situation in that it can actually be used as a useful training ground for Ministers. A couple of junior Ministers sitting in the chamber might resent the implication that they need some training. Senator Robert Ray —Not at all. Senator POWELL —It is very humble of Senator Ray to accede to that suggestion. This arrangement, of course, allows for greater flexibility and the ability to reshuffle Ministers and the responsibilities that they have, should that be necessary. I have cautioned that I believe some of the statement of ministerial responsibility is fuzzy around the edges and that this may leave the Government vulnerable, but, as I have said, that is the Government's responsibility. As I have also said, the Australian Democrats believe that the various arms of government have their particular responsibilities. We believe there are times when the Parliament has a role and must be listened to. We have demonstrated this belief, for instance, in our attempts to make the Parliament responsible when this nation decides to send its young men overseas to war. We believe that is something on which the Parliament as a whole should be able to make the decision and that it should not be in the hands of the Executive or the Prime Minister alone. There are areas where the Australian Democrats believe the whole Parliament, as the voice of the people, must act, but this is an area where we believe that the executive arm of government has the prerogative. We therefore will not oppose the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, as the Opposition will, and we will not support the Opposition's moves to send the Administrative Arrangements Bill to a committee. We believe that the test of whether it will work is in the hands of the Government and of the Public Service. We will, however, be pressing very hard for our equal employment opportunity amendment and we commend that amendment to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —I call the Minister, Senator Tate. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Parliamentary Secretary for Justice)(11.04) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am a Parliamentary Secretary. Did you call me by my correct title? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I called you the Minister. Senator TATE —That is very prophetic of you, sir, but I must indulge perhaps even more modestly than Senator Ray has by way of an interjection and note for the Hansard record that my title at the moment is Parliamentary Secretary for Justice. The attitude of the Opposition in relation to the debate that we are engaged in on the amendment to the Ministers of State Act and the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 is a very petulant one. Senator Chaney, unfortunately, sounded like a very poor loser. Had the Opposition parties succeeded in convincing the Australian electorate that a majority of their candidates for seats in the House of Representatives deserved their trust and confidence, I believe the Government which would have been led by Mr Howard would have been entitled to come to this Parliament and seek the passage of legislation putting into effect its own particular stamp and requirements and desires in relation to the administration of government on behalf of the people of Australia. I think the contribution made by the Opposition to this debate is marked by the fact that it has been rather unsettled and indeed very envious of the Prime Minister, Mr Bob Hawke, who has acted in a very decisive way in relation to the restructuring of the administration of government in this country, both at the ministerial and administrative level. We have a Prime Minister who has been willing to undertake, admittedly very rapidly but, as I say, decisively-and that is the mark of this Government-- Senator Chaney —With no plans, no agenda. How amazing he is-in three days. Senator TATE —We are told that there were no plans and no agenda. In fact the point is that, whereas the Opposition squandered its opportunity to reform and restructure the Public Service and the ministerial arrangements, we had the benefit not of relying, as the Opposition clearly had, merely on the advice of public servants so that one had a stagnation in the administrative arrangements, but on the advice of Mr David Block, for example-a consultant of the highest expertise and integrity who was brought in from the outside. These measures have been taken very largely on the basis of Mr Block's advice to the Prime Minister, which he was able to read at the tail end of the election campaign-and I believe that the press reports have it that the Prime Minister closeted himself in his room and read many of these reports on Sunday, 12 July. We had advice available to us from outside sources whereas the present Opposition year after year had allowed the Public Service to stagnate and the arrangements to just carry on with a little bit of tinkering here and there. We have a Prime Minister who was prepared to take a decisive step, a step not dependent on advice from those within the bureaucracy. Furthermore, if I may say so, his timing was rather exquisite in that he made his announcement before Ministers were wedded to their bureaucrats in the new arrangements following upon our re-election. If I may say so, that was a very sensible move by the Prime Minister, which re-inforces my view that what is really being evidenced today is a rather envious streak in honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who see themselves confronted by a Prime Minister who is willing and able to take this sort of decisive action before, admittedly, Ministers got into a comfortable mode of operation with their expectations of continuing with the same bureaucratic arrangements as before. Both Ministers and the bureaucracy were confronted with a decisive Prime Minister. I believe that it was not a bad thing to undo the stagnation that has characterised these arrangements for so many years-indeed, so many decades. As I say, the fact that reports were available to the Prime Minister in a way that did not make him beholden to the bureaucracy is something which ought to be noted. I do not think Australians want to see the actual arrangement of the bureaucracy and, certainly, ministerial arrangements determined by advice from those sources alone. I believe that a tribute is due to Mr David Block for the fact that we now have an opportunity, as has been said in the Governor- General's Speech and certainly in the Budget Papers last night, to carry out this massive restructuring of the administration of government at the Commonwealth level such that we will produce savings of $107m in a full year and cut staffing levels by 3,100 by 1988-89. That is an incredible change, and one which releases funds for us, as a Labor government, to devote expenditure to those areas which are thought to be important in the fulfilment of our election promises and manifesto. For example, in particular it enables us confidently to release funds which are now to be moved into the households of many hundreds of thousands of Australians by way of a fantastic, stupendous increase in the support available to families with two or three children, particularly those on or just below average weekly earnings. As was pointed out by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement on the Budget Papers last night, a family with two children under 13 years of age and another child, say, 14 years of age, with an income of some $340 a week and renting privately, will have an extra $69 a week in their pockets to spend on their children and their needs. How could a wage earner going out into the market-place, even with second tier negotiations, productivity agreements and all the rest of it, ever hope to bring back into his household to support his children an extra $69 a week after tax? He would have to go out and fight to get $100 a week before tax. Mr Acting Deputy President, I know you think that I am slightly diverting and that I am not being entirely relevant, but I am trying to show that this Government, by making these decisive moves, has released money which would otherwise be going into the old, stagnated bureaucratic set up. It has enabled those moneys to be moved to help Australian families and households who are in the most need. I think that is really the overall picture that one ought to keep in mind in these debates. It enables us to carry through as a Labor government our highest priorities. As we all know, the first goal of this third Hawke Government is to help financially families and households in some distress so that no Australian child shall be in poverty. That is a very important motive in terms of what we have before us by way of ministerial and administrative rearrangements. I am glad that nobody on the other side of the chamber was unkind enough or ungracious enough to suggest that I had a personal interest in joining in this debate. I have joined in the debate simply because my Leader, Senator Button, insisted that I should. But the fact is that the Ministers of State Act 1952 requires amendment to increase the size of the Ministry from 27 to 30. It is not entirely true, as Senator Powell said, that this is a matter entirely within the prerogative of government. The fact is that section 65 of the Constitution-and the Senate will recall that this was written and effective from 1901-says this: Until the Parliament otherwise provides- and that is what we are doing today- the Ministers of State shall not exceed seven in number . . . So there is clearly under the Constitution a parliamentary role in extending the size of the Ministry. We see that that section indicates that the Federal Government began its life in 1901-it had, of course, a much smaller range of responsibilities-with seven ministries. From time to time that number has been increased. Now we come before the Parliament, perhaps not with a prerogative but certainly with a very real primacy, with the claim that the Prime Minister, having submitted to the Governor-General certain proposals, be given the 30 Ministers which have been indicated as necessary if we are fully to realise the benefit of this new restructuring of government which has been undertaken. The fact is that in moving from 27 to 30 there will be a two-tier system of senior portfolio Ministers and junior portfolio Ministers, and I will come to that in a moment. Senator Peter Durack possibly will want to comment on that matter in his contribution to the debate. May I say, by the way, that there is no retrospective clause in this Bill. Initially, I was a bit disappointed to see that in that I have not received any pay since 24 July in regard to the duties that I have discharged as a quasi-Minister. But rather than lose my seat in this chamber for taking an office of profit under the Crown in those interim weeks, I am quite happy that there is not. I just want to put on the record that I am doing this job at the moment out of patriotic fervour, as it were. I think there is a very real and proper question to be asked about the two-tier system of Ministers that has been put in place. The chamber will be aware that the Government had the benefit of an opinion given by the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, and made available to the Governor-General before the Prime Minister approached the Governor-General for the swearing in of Ministers on 24 July. As I say, that opinion was made available to the Governor-General. In that opinion the Solicitor-General says that the association of junior Ministers with a senior portfolio Minister, so that several Ministers are involved in the one departmental supervision, is compatible with section 64 of the Constitution. This has not always been thought to be so. I believe that Sir Garfield Barwick thought it may not be the case. Nevertheless, that opinion is available from the Solicitor-General. He makes his opinion not only on the basis of a textual analysis of section 64, which reads: The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. He builds somewhat on the text and looks at the plurality of expression in that section, which speaks of Ministers collectively. Not only does he build on that textual analysis to say that this arrangement is compatible with the Constitution, but he also looks at the experience of the Westminster Parliament in the United Kingdom. I think honourable senators would know that, whilst in some ways we have a parliamentary system modelled on the United States of America, with the House of Representatives and the Senate, we are a parliamentary system in that the Ministers of government are the elected representatives of the people and indeed are parliamentarians at the same time as they are Ministers of the Crown. Looking to the experience in the United Kingdom, we find a common practice of senior and junior Ministers. Indeed, the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, in quoting from Parris's Constitutional Bureaucracy, published in 1969, comments that during the nineteenth century it was possible to make a satisfying career at the level of junior minister-I hope it proves to be so-`doing the work of a department presided over by a grandee'. `Grandee' is a word that perhaps some of the senior portfolio Ministers may adopt as a self-description, but I am merely quoting from a nineteenth century text. Senator Button —Some more than temporary portfolio Ministers might resent that. Senator TATE —Yes. Parris notes that `each department normally needed a junior minister'. Dr Griffith continues: It was regarded as the first rung of the ladder. As early as 1835, when he chose Gladstone to be his Under-Secretary, Lord Aberdeen wrote- in words that might really have been prophetic of, for example, Senator Robert Ray, as commented on by Senator Powell in her remarks- `it is a fine opening for a young man of talent and ambition and places him in the way to highest distinction'. I think that experience of the United Kingdom and the Westminster parliamentary system gives us a fairly sure and sound basis for considering that these arrangements are constitutional. I am happy to make that opinion available to Senator Peter Durack, who approached me a little earlier. Senator Durack —I have been asking you to make it available to the public for some time. Senator TATE —The honourable senator asked me a moment ago whether-- Senator Durack —Will you table it? Senator TATE —I am happy to table it and to make it available to the public. I table the opinion of Dr Gavan Griffith in the matter of appointment of Ministers and section 64 of the Constitution. Senator Cooney —Is he right? Senator TATE —That raises the question of the justiciability of this whole matter, and whether in fact we are to be faced with a challenge to these arrangements in the High Court of Australia. We know that Mr David Connolly, the Opposition spokesman in this area, said that there would be such a challenge. I would be interested to hear from Senator Peter Durack, or perhaps Senator Austin Lewis, or even Senator Chaney, whether indeed it is the intention of the Opposition to mount a challenge in the High Court to these arrangements. As I say, I am not even sure of the justiciability of these matters. The opinion was made available, as I say, to the Governor-General. Nevertheless, I think some response from the Opposition on that point would be useful. I move to the administrative arrangements themselves. I think this matter is really summed up in an editorial in the Australian of 25 July titled `Reforms must succeed' which in its leading paragraph says: The reforms introduced by the Hawke Government to the administrative structure of federal government ministries hold out the prospect of achieving smaller government, greater administrative efficiency and significant economies. I believe that is the motive, the hope and the expectation that we have, and we are entitled to put them into place and, as Senator Powell has quite rightly pointed out, to be judged by the electorate at the end of the three years as to whether those goals have indeed been achieved. Senator Powell —Four years. Senator TATE —Not four years, Senator, because I do not think we are going to the people with the idea of extending this term of the Parliament. Senator Powell —That is a pity. Senator TATE —I can only concur. Nevertheless, I think the point is that at the end of three years an assessment will be made by the electorate of these particular reforms which, as I say, are designed to produce savings of $107m and to cut 3,100 off staffing levels by 1988-89. The question, therefore, is whether this chamber should send this whole package of administrative arrangements to a Senate committee for its consideration and deliberation. I think it is quite clear from my remarks that this really is a matter for Executive Government. It is peculiarly for the Prime Minister and for the Executive Government to arrange the departments of state in a way which most efficiently meets the end, the goals, for which the Government has been elected by the people of Australia. I do not believe that it is correct and proper for a Senate committee to be involved in the structuring of the departments of the Executive Government. I believe that there will be very adequate opportunity, as traditionally there is on the Estimates committees, whichever form they take in this session, for the sorts of questions that are normally asked under the salaries and administration vote in relation to the new structures. It is quite clear that that will go ahead. I think that is the adequate, traditional and proper opportunity for the Senate chamber to acquaint itself with these arrangements. But for a Senate committee to have the pretension of actually looking into these arrangements and suggesting that they might be restructured in this way or that way, or perhaps vetoing this or that reform or restructuring, I think goes far beyond the bounds of the realm of a parliamentary committee. This is something peculiarly within the task of the Executive, on which it will be judged. I turn to the very important matter brought up by Senator Powell by way of an amendment to the structures that replace the Public Service Board and the new arrangements that are in place. The Australian Democrats have asked us to look at it very seriously. I am sure that Senator Button has taken on board the request of the Democrats that a commitment to equal employment opportunity be demonstrated to be at the very core and heart of the new arrangements and not dispersed amongst the departments as a responsibility of the departmental heads. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, much of this rearrangement is based on the idea of devolving as much responsibility, in particular managerial responsibility, to departmental heads away from a central bureaucratic concern such as the old Public Service Board. Insofar as there are nevertheless some structures which have a more central character, it may well be appropriate that within those structures the question of equal employment opportunity receive a definite place. I am sure that by the end of the committee stage debate Senator Powell's amendment will have received very due consideration by the Government and that a reply will then be available. That is the case for the passage of this legislation through this chamber. I believe it does mark a decisive moment in the ministerial and administrative arrangements of government in this country. It is the mark of a Prime Minister who chose exquisite timing, I believe, to bring these matters in before the bureaucracy and the new Ministers were wedded to old and really quite stagnant arrangements that had been tinkered with but basically had been built merely on foundations laid many years before. With the aid of David Block, and with the advice of certain members of the bureaucracy, we have come up with what I believe is a quite striking rearrangement which, at the ministerial level and at the level of administration, will give this Government the opportunity to fulfil the mandate which was given to it by the Australian people in such decisive terms on 11 July. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.24) —I am pleased to follow Senator Tate in this debate because he has addressed himself primarily to the subject on which I also want to make my contribution, namely, the new structure of the Ministry and, of course, of the departments which the Ministers are sworn in to administer under the Constitution. Senator Tate in his contribution attempted to rewrite history to the greater glory of his leader, Prime Minister Hawke. I was rather distressed by the somewhat sycophantic nature of Senator Tate's contribution. I have always had some respect for his independent role, but I suppose he owes so much to Prime Minister Hawke in recent times for even his survival as a senator, much less the Gladstonian prospects of moving from the position of Parliamentary Secretary to Minister as a result of this legislation, and no doubt ultimately occupying the position of Senator Button, maybe sooner than Senator Button would wish. Putting aside these personal explanations about Senator Tate's contribution, I want to return to the major issue. I support the Opposition's decision to oppose the increase in the Ministry from 27 to 30 proposed by the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2). I do not wish to add to what Senator Chaney said on that question, only to say that the new structure of government did not require the increase in the Ministry and that there are major political and economic reasons why that Ministry should have been reduced rather than increased; nor do I want to address myself particularly to the new departmental setup and that part of the Administrative Arrangements Bill which deals with the abolition of the Public Service Board and so on, all of which no doubt are interesting subjects, certainly to me and no doubt to many other senators. I wish particularly to speak about the new Ministry, which was the major subject addressed by Senator Tate. Senator Tate has tabled the opinion of the Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith, which I am sure will be of interest to senators. I regret that as yet I have not had the opportunity of reading it, but extracts of it have been read to me and obviously it will repay study. I did not realise that the opinion had such interesting historical content as well about the nature of British Ministries and the early career of William Gladstone, but no doubt that makes it even more interesting. This is an important starting point for what I want to say, because the question of having senior and junior Ministers attached to a particular department or ministry has a long history. I did not realise that it had such a long history, going back to 1835, but certainly it has a long history in the United Kingdom. The matter has been the subject of a great deal of discussion over many years in Australia. Senator Tate has been trying to rewrite history by saying that this was some great, new, brilliant idea that struck the Prime Minister on 12 July, the day after the election. It seems to be damning that the Prime Minister, after he had been in government for 4 1/2 years, should have suddenly focused on this issue when he was confronted with having to create a new government, having won the election on 11 July, and when he was also faced with the problem of a good deal of in-fighting among the factions, and several other problems such as saving Senator Tate's position on the front bench. It does not say very much for Prime Minister Hawke that he came to grips with this matter only a few days before he set it up. That does not seem to suggest that there was a very adequate study by the Prime Minister or those who were advising him. No doubt Mr Block justifies the praise that has been heaped upon him by Senator Tate, but I do not think it could be suggested, and I do not think Mr Block would suggest, that this was any original idea of his. As we have already heard from Senator Tate, the idea goes back more than a century in the United Kingdom. It has certainly been the subject of a good deal of discussion in the upper echelons of the Federal bureaucracy for many years. I have had some experience in government in dealing with proposals which emanated from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to new structures of government. Things were done about it by coalition governments. In government we pioneered the idea of the office of Parliamentary Secretary held by Senator Tate at the moment. Indeed, constitutional questions were raised and I had my first contact with this subject as to what would be the status of Parliamentary Secretaries, whether they could be paid and so on. Coalition governments also attempted to use the idea of Assistant Ministers so that Ministers with fairly small junior portfolios could be allocated to assist senior Ministers. That was very much along the same lines as these proposals. A great deal of nonsense has been talked since the Prime Minister had this sudden conversion to reform on 12 July. As Senator Chaney clearly pointed out, we not only made contributions in this respect when we were in government to improve the structure of government and to enhance ministerial control, but since we have been in opposition we have given a great deal of thought to perfecting these arrangements. In fact, we suggested in the 1984 and 1987 elections that there could be some major changes very much along the lines that the Government chose to adopt after the last election. At that election not only did the Opposition in its policy on public administration foreshadow that sort of thing at a departmental level, but the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, in his policy speech announced that the Opposition, if successful, would be abolishing a number of departments, including the department of which I was shadow Minister at the time, Resources and Energy. That was proposed by me. My experience in studying that Department was that there was no justification in having a separate Department of Resources and Energy and that it could be brought within a larger structure of administration. It was interesting that the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Gareth Evans), who was then the Minister for Resources and Energy, was deeply shocked by the Opposition's suggestion that his toffee apple might be taken away from him if those ideas ever appealed to his leader. I remember that when it was announced Senator Gareth Evans made a vigorous denunciation of the Opposition's proposal to abolish the Department of Resources and Energy. Although the Opposition supports the new structure in broad terms, we are by no means struck dumb by the wonder of the genius that Senator Tate would have us believe the Prime Minister has shown. Senator Button —We would not want you to be struck dumb, Senator. Senator DURACK —I do not think even Senator Button is very much struck with the wonder of it either, or at least I hope he is not. The question I find most interesting and important about the new arrangements relates to the impact they will have on ministerial responsibility and the accountability of Ministers to the Parliament. In his statement of 11 August the Prime Minister announced in detail the new structure and he said that the intention of appointing more than one Minister to administer a portfolio was to enhance ministerial control. In other words, there would be what the Prime Minister called `a portfolio Minister'-that is a senior Minister-who would be ultimately accountable for the portfolio. Other Ministers would have clear accountability for areas of responsibility allocated to them and would be required to answer questions in relation to those areas. I was also rather surprised to find that in his speech the Parliamentary Secretary for Justice (Senator Tate) talked about senior and junior Ministers. As I understand it, the Government's decision means that Ministers are of equal status. There are not, in fact, senior and junior Ministers under this arrangement; it is a system described by the Prime Minister as `dual administration of portfolios'. This might sound like a debating point but it may be very important in relation to ministerial accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. I notice that the Prime Minister is always referring to the Cabinet Minister as `the portfolio Minister' and to the others as `the other Ministers'. The whole scheme is a dual administration concept-dual administration of departments with more than one Minister actually administering a department. I do not think by any means that this is just a particular choice of words. In my view this concept is dictated by the Constitution itself and, as I understand it, Dr Griffith has adopted this view. Section 64 of the Constitution is the foundation of executive power of Ministers. It says: The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. That section goes on to enshrine in the Constitution our whole basis of responsible government and ministerial responsibility to Parliament. It says: After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. The whole concept is that one cannot have Ministers of state under section 64 of the Constitution unless they are given the administration of a department because only those people who are given the administration of a department can be classified as the Queen's Ministers of state in terms of section 64. The great debate which has gone on-even though it may have gone on unknown to Senator Tate and apparently unknown to the Prime Minister until 12 July-is whether more than one Minister could administer a department under section 64 of the Constitution. I do not think that there has ever been any doubt in recent times that one cannot have a Minister unless he or she has a department to administer. The real question is whether more than one Minister can participate in the administration of a department. Obviously that question in itself has posed difficulties. Is one to have an old Roman concept of duumvirates? How will one assign responsibilities and so on if two Ministers are jostling with each other in administering a department? On the face of it there are very considerable difficulties. But of course these difficulties can be overcome at the political level; these matters are within the political control and power of a Prime Minister. As I understand it, that is what has been done by the Prime Minister by consultation within the Ministry. I presume that letters have been written about these matters and on such an interesting question it would be helpful if the Government were to table the letters that have passed so that we can see how the whole thing works. Senator Button —Helpful to whom? Senator DURACK —The Minister is making a big song and dance about the wonders of this new setup. It would be of great interest to students of government. The Minister has already indicated the allocation of responsibilities in the statement he put out yesterday, which presumably he has not read very carefully. The details are there. Political points can be made here and I think that Senator Harradine will probably make a few. If I have time I might do so also. But there are no politics in my comments; I am simply saying that it would be helpful to those who are interested in the whole structure of government to know exactly how these obvious administrative difficulties have been and will be overcome. I do not agree with the legal opinions that have been advanced that the Constitution prevents more than one Minister being assigned to the administration of a department. I think that that is a very possible constitutional arrangement, although there is clearly doubt about it. Senator Tate asked whether the Opposition will challenge it. As far as I know the Opposition will not challenge it, but it is not for me to say so. It does seem to have constitutional foundations. It has the support and opinion of Dr Griffith, the Solicitor-General, and on the face of it it seems to me to be a reasonable legal proposal. Whether it will be challenged is another matter. Senator Tate referred to Mr Connolly, who was the then Opposition spokesman on these matters. Mr Connolly said that it would be challenged. Of course, it is likely to be challenged; it is a new concept. If a Minister signs a document which interferes with an individual's rights, that person may well challenge the legal validity of it. As I said, I do not believe that the Opposition intends to do so because the whole issue of this new structure of government is of great interest. It is an experiment. We will be watching it very closely simply because it is a useful and innovative contribution to the methods of administration of the Commonwealth Government. I cannot say whether it will stand up if in fact it is challenged in the High Court of Australia. That doubt-there is undoubtedly a doubt there-has been one of the reasons why the full system of dual administration was not implemented by coalition governments in the past, certainly those which I have had anything to do with, and other arrangements were made. As I have said, the Opposition was looking towards an innovative method of this kind even though it may carry with it some legal risks. That is a fair summary of the situation at the legal level. The most important issue, of course, is the question of ministerial responsibility. My own view is that the only way this dual administration can stand up is if the Ministers-whoever they are; whether there are two, three or even 10 of them-are assigned to a particular department and become the Queen's Ministers of state because they are appointed to administer such departments of state as the Governor-General establishes. The Constitution does not state that Ministers can be assigned to administer bits and pieces of a department. It states, `administer such departments'. The Administrative Arrangements Order creating the new departments of state was set out in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 July. I do not propose to table that document because we have all the details. The Governor-General, having created the new departmental structure, then appointed the Ministers in accordance with section 64. The Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 24 July states: His Excellency the Governor-General directs it to be notified, for general information, that he has been pleased to direct and appoint the following Members of the Federal Executive Council to hold the offices mentioned in connection with their respective names, and to administer the Department of State connected with such offices, namely: It then lists the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, Senator Button and the whole list of the 27 Ministers. Senator Button —I am still around, sitting here. Don't worry. Senator DURACK —Yes. I wondered why Senator Button was still sitting there. I realise why when I read the Gazette of 24 July. The 27 Ministers have been legally appointed under the Ministers of State Act. The Governor-General, following the advice of Dr Griffith, has been very careful in the words he has chosen. His notice states that Ministers have been appointed to administer the department of state connected with such offices as they hold. I seek leave to incorporate the notice in Hansard. I understand Senator Button is agreeable. Leave granted. The notice read as follows- Government House, Canberra ACT 2600 24 July 1987 HIS Excellency the Governor-General directs it to be notified, for general information, that he has been pleased to direct and appoint the following Members of the Federal Executive Council to hold the offices mentioned in connection with their respective names, and to administer the Department of State connected with such offices, namely: The Honourable Robert James Lee Hawke, AC, MP Prime Minister The Honourable Lionel Frost Bowen, MP Attorney-General Senator the Honourable John Norman Button Minister of State for Industry, Technology and Commerce Senator the Honourable Gareth John Evans, QC Minister of State for Transport and Communications The Honourable Paul John Keating, MP Treasurer The Honourable Michael Jerome Young, MP Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Senator the Honourable Peter Alexander Walsh Minister of State for Finance The Honourable William George Hayden, MP Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade The Honourable Ralph Willis, MP Minister of State for Industrial Relations The Honourable John Sydney Dawkins, MP Minister of State for Employment, Education and Training The Honourable Kim Christian Beazley, MP Minister of State for Defence The Honourable John Charles Kerin, MP Minister of State for Primary Industries and Energy The Honourable Brian Leslie Howe, MP Minister of State for Social Security The Honourable Stewart John West, MP Minister of State for Administrative Services The Honourable John Joseph Brown, MP Minister of State for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories The Honourable Neal Blewett, MP Minister of State for Community Services and Health Senator the Honourable Susan Maree Ryan Special Minister of State The Honourable Michael John Duffy, MP Minister of State for Trade Negotiations The Honourable Peter Frederick Morris, MP Minister of State for Resources The Honourable Allan Clyde Holding, MP Minister of State for Employment Services and Youth Affairs The Honourable Barry Owen Jones, MP Minister of State for Science and Small Business The Honourable Benjamin Charles Humphreys, MP Minister of State for Veterans' Affairs Senator the Honourable Graham Frederick Richardson Minister of State for the Environment and the Arts The Honourable Gerard Leslie Hand, MP Minister of State for Aboriginal Affairs Senator the Honourable Robert Francis Ray Minister of State for Home Affairs The Honourable Peter Richard Staples, MP Minister of State for Consumer Affairs The Honourable Peter Duncan, MP Minister of State for Land Transport and Infrastructure Support By His Excellency's Command (David I. Smith) Official Secretary to the Governor-General Senator DURACK —The Prime Minister has had some form of consultation, informally, by letter or whatever, but Senator Button does not seem to want us to know too much about it. We may have to seek that information under the Freedom of Information Act, which, as far as I can see, the Government now regrets having supported when it was in opposition. Thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act, which the coalition government brought in, because, if we cannot get such information voluntarily, we may be able to get it under that Act. The Prime Minister, in his statement of 11 August, which was repeated by Senator Button yesterday, stated: I am releasing a list of the functions to be performed by other ministers, but wish to emphasise that the list is indicative and will in no way prevent either portfolio ministers operating within the nominated areas or other ministers being given additional responsibilities over time. It is a very flexible arrangement and it emphasises the fact that, in law and in constitutional terms, these Ministers are ultimately responsible for the whole of their department. I am a little concerned by other statements made by the Prime Minister on 11 August, and in the statement put down yesterday, in which the Government has tried to qualify in some way the degree of responsibility of the second stream Ministers. They are not junior Ministers; that is quite clear. The whole ministerial tradition in the United Kingdom is based upon having senior and junior Ministers. But as I have pointed out, that is not the structure created here, nor does the Prime Minister refer to it as such. I do not know why Senator Tate did so in his speech. Even in the United Kingdom, under the rule of having senior and junior Ministers-very clearly junior Ministers-the tradition of accountability to Parliament has been very well established. We all remember that when Lord Carrington, the then Foreign Secretary, resigned at the beginning of the war with Argentina because of his feeling of failed responsibility on his part or on the part of his Department to warn the government adequately about the likelihood of the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands, not only he but also his junior Ministers resigned-even though the junior Ministers had absolutely no direct responsibility for any failure there may have been, tenuous and all as it probably was, on the part of Lord Carrington. The tradition of junior Ministers being held responsible along with their senior Ministers has been well established in the United Kingdom and that case was the most recent example of it. It is very important, on the occasion of this new structure being established, that we affirm clearly-I am disappointed that the Government has not more clearly affirmed it-the full responsibilities and accountability of Ministers not only for their own personal actions but also in relation to the whole of their departments, the Parliament and the electorate. I believe that is essentially the right position and essentially the constitutional position. I hope the Government, in implementing this new structure that it has created, will acknowledge and act upon full responsibility of relevant Ministers for the whole of their departments. It may be as a practical matter that portfolio and other Ministers will decide between themselves who will answer questions. But let us take the case of the portfolio Minister being in the House of Representatives and the other Minister responsible being in the Senate. I would expect the Minister in this place to answer any questions that may be put to him regarding the department with which his office is connected and for which he was sworn in by the Governor-General in the document that I have had incorporated in Hansard. That principle has now been clarified in the amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act, one of which we are dealing with in this debate. It is made clear that, where an Act relates to a portfolio covering more than one Minister, that Act will be applicable to all relevant Ministers. Any of those Ministers can exercise the statutory powers given, but only one of them may do so in any particular case, such as the signing of a document. I believe that this new structure does and ought to preserve the full effect of ministerial responsibility, and I hope that the Government will in practice observe that very high and important tradition of our public life. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.49) —I was most interested in the points that have just been made by Senator Durack. It is to those points that I wish to refer very briefly, although certainly not in the erudite fashion of Senator Durack or with his long experience. The Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987, one of the two Bills before us, provides, inter alia, for an Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board, comprising part time members who will include the Commissioner, the secretaries of certain departments, a person with a trade union background and a person with private sector experience. The new body's functions will include the provision of advice to the Government on significant issues relating to the management of the Australian Public Service. The Australian Public Service deserves a great shake up. On a number of occasions over the last six or seven years I have stood in this place decrying the fact that the employment structure of the Australian Public Service has discriminated against the employment of youth in the Service. Frankly, the position has been absolutely disastrous for youth. Consideration has been given to this matter by a number of Ministers though that consideration has not been reported to this Parliament. I would certainly like to hear from the Ministers a report from their departments about this question. An honourable senator adverted to the fact that there is substantial unemployment in Australia and that this issue has not received the attention it deserved. Hundreds of thousands of people in Australia are unemployed; almost a quarter of teenagers who are not at school are unemployed. That is an absolute disgrace. The youth unemployment rate is almost three times the unemployment rate for older persons. To date nothing really effective has been done. Sure, we have had the Priority One: Young Australia program, training programs and so on but where are the permanent jobs for those people who have been trained? As far as the Australian Public Service is concerned, it is a question of declining job opportunities for youth as a percentage of total employees in the Public Service. The position is as I stated in a notice of motion listed on the Notice Paper on Tuesday. The latest figures available to me and to this Parliament indicate that in 1966, persons under 21 years of age constituted 22.2 per cent of the Australian Public Service staff. This figure fell to 12.2 per cent in 1974 and to an all time low of 6.5 per cent as at December 1985. That is a disgraceful situation but it is repeated in many State public services. Initiatives must be taken to rectify that situation. I know that some initiatives have been suggested in one State. Those initiatives suggest that there is a need for a clear statement of support at policy level and that that is the starting point for any successful program which is aimed at employing a fair share of youth in the Public Service. Time and time again the Government has stated that it is in favour of making youth a priority but the real test is whether youth is getting a fair share of employment in the Public Service, for which the Government is responsible, and it is not. Surely that is an indictment of the Government's own policy. It is not through lack of will on the Government's part because the Ministers concerned are very serious about the matter. I know that the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, Mr Willis, is very concerned about it. It is the structures in the Public Service that need attention and a bit of bucking up to ensure that they carry out the policy of the Government in respect of youth employment. I hope that what the Government is seeking to put in place in this legislation has that effect. I now turn to the Minister of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. The point made by Senator Durack is a valid one. It is important to recognise-I think Senator Powell made this point-that the executive Government has the prerogative, both constitutionally and electorally, to determine the number of Ministers and portfolios. That is a decision for the Governor-General, strictly in accordance with the Constitution, on the advice of the Government. Obviously, the Senate does not wish to interfere with that prerogative but the Senate and, indeed, the people of Australia must ask some questions about ministerial responsibility. The point made by Senator Durack is a valid one. He indicated that in his view there is no constitutional bar to two Ministers having responsibility within the one portfolio. I am not so sure of that but I bow to superior knowledge in respect of this matter and take it that that is constitutionally feasible. However, it is important to recognise and to emphasise that if there are two Ministers, the question must be asked: Who has the ultimate responsibility and, in particular, who is accountable to the Parliament? The Parliament has the ultimate audit and control over those who exercise executive power. It is important that we know that the Ministers are accountable to this Parliament. I raise one matter about the division of res-ponsibilities within portfolios which was referred to in the statement by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). It is associated with the matters we are discussing now. According to the division of responsibilities of the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan will also assist the Minister for Community Ser-vices and Health (Dr Blewett) and have responsibility for a number of areas, one of which has taken my interest, namely, bioethical issues including the establishment of advisory structures. Bioethical issues are very important. They deal with life-not only the beginning of life but the end of life. Right to life issues-the basic right of individuals-have always been within the purview of the Attorney-General. After all, the Attorney-General is the member of Parliament responsible for the initiation of legislation into Parliament and its passage through the legislature, particularly Bills dealing with criminal law. We are dealing with issues about a person's right to exist being taken away, say, for example, by exercising euthanasia, and that would attract a criminal penalty. Surely it is an issue over which the Attorney-General should retain control. I believe in all the States this issue is the responsibility of the Attorney-General. Senator Button —Doesn't he still retain control by virtue of the need for him to present legislation on these matters? Senator HARRADINE —I do not know whether that means simply that Senator Ryan will be responsible for the co-ordination of these issues within the health portfolio and that the Attorney-General will have overall responsibility. I assume that that is the case. In respect of a national body concerned with reproductive technology, the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 recommends in paragraph 4.46 on page 54 of its report: The body would be broadly representative and chaired by an eminent lay person. In matters falling within Commonwealth jurisdiction it would be responsible to the Commonwealth Attorney-General supported by an IDC (Interdepartmental Committee) including the Health portfolio. Am I to assume that under the new administrative arrangements and division of responsibilities this area will be Senator Ryan's responsibility as it relates to the Department of Health? This recommendation of the Committee was, as far as I can recall, the unanimous view of the members of that all-party Committee. It is important to register that fact here and now so that we can have some clarification of the matter. I assume that the point made under the division of responsibilities within the portfolio is only an indication of the responsibility of Senator Ryan within the Health portfolio and is not intended to usurp the responsibility which ultimately bears on the Attorney-General in respect of these matters and that it particularly does not pre-empt a proper consideration of the Senate Select Committee's recommendation contained in paragraph 4.46 of its report. I am not in a position ultimately to interfere with what is a government responsibility-establishing the number of portfolios and the number of ministries. There may be benefit in having this matter considered by a committee but that should not inhibit the exercise of proper administrative authority by those on whom the responsibility has been placed. In the ultimate I would certainly support the legislation that is before us. Whether this matter is referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is beside the point. Ultimately I will support the Bill as it stands and hope that a clarification of the matter I have raised will be forthcoming. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(12.08) —The Bills that the Senate is debating at the moment are the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987. The first Bill, the Ministers of State Amendment Bill, proposes to expand the Ministry from 27 to 30. As my Leader, Senator Chaney, has said, the Opposition will be opposing the Bill for one very good reason: at a time when the Government is talking about, and the community is demanding, smaller government, to expand the Ministry by three seems to run absolutely contrary to the theme that that would imply. If we really believe in smaller and more efficient government, there is no way that that is compatible with having an expanded Ministry, particularly when the Ministry was expanded purely for the purpose of allowing factional arrangements to be sorted out to satisfaction within the Australian Labour Party after the election. Let us be quite clear on this. There was no science in expanding the Ministry from 27 to 30. It was sheer, cold, hard-headed politics on the part of the factional managers of the Government and a reluctance and inability on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to exert his authority to the extent where he could keep the size of the Government within reasonable bounds. So there is no earthly justification for an expansion of the Ministry from 27 to 30. It will lead to bigger government, not smaller government. It will lead to less efficient management of government activities. It will lead to a further lessening of the role of the Parliament relative to the Executive, a constant trend for far too many years now. If we really believe in a parliamentary democratic system, it is about time we took it seriously and considered limiting the size of the Executive Government, and not continually expanding it. So the Opposition will oppose the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. The second Bill, to which I will address most of my remarks, is the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987, which gives effect to a quite fundamental restructuring of the Australian Public Service into different departments and a different structuring and ordering of departments. It also abolishes the Public Service Board, replacing it with a single Public Service Commissioner, with many of the other duties of the Board being farmed out to other areas and departments. The Opposition has moved an amendment to refer the Administrative Arrangements Bill to the appropriate Senate committee. I note that the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine are not going to support our amendment and that, therefore, it will not be carried. Nevertheless, I wish to stress its importance. The Opposition will be calling for a vote on it because it is a very important and significant amendment. As do other Opposition senators, I accept the point which has been made by the Democrats and by Senator Harradine that in many ways it is the responsibility of the Government to order its executive and departmental arrangements. However, for us to say that the Government has carte blanche and that the Parliament has no responsibility to consider the most fundamental change in Public Service structures we have seen in a long time is an abrogation on our part of what is properly and entirely appropriately a parliamentary role of scrutiny. I hope, therefore, that those who have said they will oppose the reference to the Committee will think again, although I realise that it is a forlorn hope. There are a couple of background points about the changes that have been made which I think we should take note of. I certainly wish to draw them to the attention of the Senate. Two key features have marked Labor's 4 1/2 years of reign in government. The first has been a massive increase in the size of government. There has been an enormous increase in the number of public servants employed either by government departments or by statutory authorities. An additional 44 statutory authorities have been created since this Government took office. Senator Button —Are you saying that as a net figure? We have abolished a number of them, too. You had better refer to them. Senator SHORT —The Government might have abolished a few rats and mice but it has abolished nothing of any significance. There has been a very significant increase in the overall number of statutory authorities. There certainly has been an enormous increase, as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) well knows, in the total number of public servants employed in departments or in statutory bodies. That is a trend that is quite contrary to the interests of this country. It is something of which we ought to be aware. The second major thing that has happened over the last 4 1/4 years has been the tremendous increase in the politicisation of the Public Service. That, I believe, has been a building on the legacy first started by the Whitlam Administration between 1972 and 1975. Of all the legacies-and there were an enormous number-the Whitlam Government left this nation, the biggest and the worst was the politicisation of the Public Service. I thought that it had reached a very high level of art form under the Whitlam Government, but I have to say that the Hawke Government has made the Whitlam Government look amateurish in this context. The long term implications for this country of the politicisation of the Public Service are absolutely enormous. We have seen some recent classic-- Senator MacGibbon —It fits in with banana republics, doesn't it? Senator SHORT —Very much so. One of the great problems of the banana republic nations of this world is that they have not had professional, non-political public services. So Senator MacGibbon is quite right in making that point. We have seen some classic examples of it in recent times. Perhaps the most spectacular was the one that occurred a couple of weeks ago with the outburst by the permanent head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins. Senator Button —Come on. It happened in your period of government, too, and you did nothing about it. You know that. Senator SHORT —I will come to that. There is a fundamental difference between what has happened under the Minister's Government and what happened under the previous Government. The incredible fact of the Perkins outburst was that he made it against his own Government's policies and against the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard. What Mr Perkins said and the very fact that he said it constitute in the minds of the Opposition at least-it does not seem to be the case with the Government-a totally unacceptable intrusion into party politics by one of the most senior members of the Australian Public Service. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Hand, in fact defended Mr Perkins's right to make political statements even though he did not necessarily endorse the content. But that defence by the Minister, if applied generally, would undermine fundamentally the apolitical nature of the Australian Public Service. Are we to assume that Mr Perkins, or anyone in his position, occupies some special position of privilege? The Prime Minister Mr Hawke, and the Government-- Senator MacGibbon —Do not forget Mr Boucher as head of the Taxation Office. Senator SHORT —Yes, the examples are legion. I am using the Perkins example as perhaps one of the more recent and spectacular. The Prime Minister and the Government must not dodge this issue. The Prime Minister must tell the Australian public what is the standard of conduct expected from permanent heads of Commonwealth departments. The permanent heads and other senior public officials must live up to that standard. The slippage that has occurred in recent years will have a long term legacy for the future of this country. I will quote from a recent speech by a former very senior and very respected, I think by all parties, public servant in the form of Mr Peter Henderson, who retired a couple of years ago as the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs. He made the point in a recent speech-and it is the point I pick the Minister up on in terms of `we did it'-that there is a fundamental difference. He said: . . . it is not so much the limited number of jobs for the politically acceptable boys and girls that should worry the community at large: that has always been with us in varying degrees. Mr Henderson is right in that- What is newer is the move towards politics in the upper reaches of the Public Service, so that when governments change, senior officials change as well. In my view that is likely to reduce the quality of objective, experienced, and informed advice available to Ministers, and to the extent that that happens, the performance of government is weakened. Mr Henderson continues: The disquiet at these developments has been most eloquently expressed within the past twelve months by the former Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck . . . He is surely a man of impeccable reputation to people of all political persuasions throughout Australia. Mr Henderson quotes from an article written by Sir Paul Hasluck entitled `Politics in the Public Service: the New Corruption' which appeared in a recent edition of Quadrant. I will quote to the Senate two short passages from that article: If political favour becomes a factor in advancement or appointment to the top positions (in the Public Service) the thoughts of all up-and-coming public servants will turn to the question: whom am I trying to please? Whom am I trying to serve? The only sure and certain protection against authoritarian rule in Australian Government is a professional, competent, career public service, independent of the favour of Ministers and conscious of its one specialised role in the conduct of public affairs. Those are the words of Sir Paul Hasluck. Senator Button —Nobody disagrees with that. Senator SHORT —I am pleased to hear that. I look forward to seeing the Minister's Government put into practice his acceptance of those views. The actions of the Hawke Government have been absolutely contrary to that during the period it has been in office. The increase in the size of government and the politicisation of the Public Service are the two backdrops that the community and the Senate need to take well into account when looking at the changes that have been proposed in the Bills before us. Why have these changes been made? The obvious reason on the Prime Minister's part and the decisions that should be noted were taken three days after the election without any consultation with Cabinet, without any consultation with other than a handful of other Ministers. I understand that not even Senator Button, as the third most senior Minister in the Government and the Leader of the Government in this House, was consulted. I was very interested to see his reported reaction when he lost one of the key prizes of his own portfolio and one of the keys to the success of his portfolio, the Industries Assistance Commission. I am not necessarily saying that the IAC should not have gone to the Department of the Treasury, but I find it absolutely fascinating that the Minister, as the third most senior Labor politician in the land, lost that sweet pea without being able to say a word to pluck it back. That is an example of the type of approach that has led to the changes that have been made. Cabinet was not consulted; it was insulted. There was no liaison, as I understand it, with State governments, and despite the fact that many of the changes are going to have an effect on State governments, no indication was made of the proposed changes prior to the election; so the Australian people were not told. The net effect of all of this has been a great grab-bag of ill-conceived and loose-ended changes. One of the Prime Minister's own Ministers was reported by Paul Kelly-and he normally knows a bit about these things-as having described the Prime Minister's efforts as akin to those of Mr Toad. He said: He threw open the garage door, donned goggles and driving coat and then proceeded to terrorise the neighbourhood. As with Mr Toad, the terrorising took place without any considered thought at all. The changes that have been made remind me a little of the writings of a certain gentleman in the year 210 BC, whose name was Petronius. Writing in 210 BC, he said: We trained hard . . . but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised . . . I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization. That is precisely what these changes have produced. I do not normally place a great deal of weight on what journalists for the Australian Financial Review write, but there was a very interesting and excellent article in that paper last week by Jane Ford in which she detailed the great loss of morale, the chaos and the discord that have been created by the reorganisation of the bureaucracy and the way in which it was done. She pointed out that virtually no productive work has come out of most departments since the election and that it is very widely predicted within Government departments that very little of substance will appear for 12 months at best and two years at worst. The disturbing effect on morale and the general disillusionment that has gone through the Public Service is a matter of very great concern indeed. If the Government believes it can get on with its programs in the way that it wishes while causing the great loss of morale in the Public Service that it has caused and the confusion that has arisen, it has another think coming to it. It is highly unlikely, in my view, that the changes that have been undertaken by the Prime Minister and the Government in the cause of so-called efficiency and effectiveness in the Public Service will in fact achieve those ends. Concerns in the Service as a whole and outside have run very wide and deep because many of the reforms have not been thought through; there are many loose ends still to be sorted out. Also, as I understand it, the efficiency unit headed by Mr Block has been disbanded. Mr Block continues as a consultant to the Prime Minister but the work that was set in train by him, which formed an important part of the restructuring, left many loose ends and the unit he was heading is not there to pick them up. I wish to look at a few of the problems that I and the Opposition see with the restructuring. The key one is that there is a great deal of scope for confusion and avoidance of responsibility within departments and particularly between Ministers and their departments. For example, the Prime Minister, in his statement announcing the new ministerial arrangements on 11 August, said: The ultimate responsibility for the portfolio . . . will rest with the portfolio minister-- That is, the so-called super-Minister. He also said that the purpose of the reorganisation was: . . . to enable portfolio ministers to be released . . . from the detailed administrative work so that they could focus on the strategic direction of the portfolio and its contribution to Government priorities. If the ultimate responsibility rests with the portfolio Minister and if he will be accountable, as the Prime Minister says he will, to Parliament for the overall operation of the portfolio, how can he be released from the detailed day to day work? More importantly, or at least as importantly, where does that leave the junior Minister? If the super-Minister is ultimately responsible, what real role-what responsibility, what accountability and what authority-does the junior Minister have? The scope for conflict and confusion between super-Ministers and junior Ministers is absolutely enormous. Looking at some of the groupings, the mind boggles as to how this system is going to work. I wonder how Senator Gareth Evans feels he will get along over the year ahead with Mr Peter Duncan, for example. They are members of totally opposing factions and they hold totally different views on an enormous range of issues. That is just one of many examples. What will be the relationship between the junior Minister and the portfolio Secretary, the senior public servant for the expanded ministry? That is not clear. The Prime Minister's statement mentions a working relationship between the super-Minister and the portfolio Secretary. It also mentions a working relationship between the so-called Associate Secretary and the junior Minister, but it says nothing at all about the relationship between the Associate Secretary and the senior Minister or the relationship between the real Secretary and the junior Minister. The whole thing is a dog's breakfast of potential confusion and lack of responsibility. There is an enormous scope for getting things wrong and, more importantly, for passing the buck. There is a great imbalance between the work loads of the various ministries. Some of the groupings also look very odd. Why on earth would one put local government into a grouping with immigration and ethnic affairs? As Senator Chaney mentioned earlier, the grouping of the arts, sport, the environment, tourism and territories-Mr John Brown's super-ministry-comprises several totally unrelated areas. Similar points could be made about other groupings. The number of departments, it has been said, has been reduced from 28 to 18. But where will the actual savings occur? What overlap and duplication will in fact be eliminated? The comment is made in the Prime Minister's statement that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is to be abolished and replaced by a commission. When will that happen? What are the legal provisions relating to that measure? What is its constitutionality as far as the Minister is concerned? Are there problems in this regard? Still further legislation will be necessary to effect the full breakup of the Public Service Board. We do not know what that legislation is; we do not know when it is coming in; we do not know what its implications and effect will be. Senator Button —What is unusual about that, for goodness sake? Senator SHORT —What is unusual about it is that we have a government that has brought things in in a piecemeal manner leaving an enormous number of loose ends to be followed up, but the Government expects the Parliament to agree to all of these things without any serious consideration. It is for that reason that we on this side of the chamber have moved the amendment to refer these matters to an appropriate committee-the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations or whatever may replace it in any changed committee arrangements. It is very important that the Parliament have a chance to look at these matters because it is crystal clear-clear beyond any doubt at all-that these arrangements have not been thought through. They are in many respects ill-conceived. I am not in any way suggesting that there is no desirability in a restructuring but, for heaven's sake, if we are going to restructure the Public Service-a measure which will have long term effects not just on this Government but on successive governments and therefore on the conduct of public life and public service in this country-we owe it to ourselves and to the future to make sure that we get it right. I believe there are considerable doubts as to whether that is the case on this occasion. At the very least we owe ourselves the responsibility of making sure that we have a much closer look at the matter than we have had the opportunity to do to date. I conclude by supporting Senator Chaney's amendment on behalf of the Opposition in relation to the administrative arrangements and I reiterate that we will oppose the expansion of the Ministry, which is proposed for quite unnecessary and illogical reasons. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.34) —I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. I indicate at the outset that the Government will not support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Chaney on behalf of the Opposition. While Opposition senators were speaking I was reminded of these lines from Tennyson's poem Ulysses: Yet all experience is an arch wherethro' gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades. For ever and for ever when I move. The Opposition has had some nasty experiences in the last few months, and I understand that. But the objection seems to be on the one hand that the Government has moved quickly on this issue while another speaker has put the view that the Government has moved slowly on the issue. Honourable senators opposite cannot even make up their minds about that question. Senator Chaney started off by saying, `Look, we thought of this in 1984 and we had a rethink in 1987'. It is all very well to think about these things. Government Ministers have been thinking about these things for some time too. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that there was no agenda of the Government in relation to these matters, that was absolutely correct. It was not duplicity. Individual Government Ministers have thought about these things and, of course, have discussed them for a very long time as it is quite natural for Government Ministers to do. One is not debarred from thinking on the basis that one is a member of this Parliament. Of course, Government Ministers are not debarred from thinking any more than the Opposition appears to be. So, if I may say so, the sort of churlish approach to this legislation adopted by some Opposition senators in the course of their contributions is really disappointing. Senator Chaney gave a revisited version of his Bonnie Prince Charlie speech, of the government in exile. He went on to chastise the Australian Labor Party for doing some of these things, as he says, for factional reasons. Goodness me, what would Neil Brown say about all that? What would Senator Chaney say? Only a month or so ago he was touted widely as the only suitable person to be the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. He modestly on television awaited the call, which he did not get. These things happen in political parties, and I do not retreat from that for one moment. I think the honourable senator should recognise that, having been here for some time. Senator Chaney —You are not prepared to touch on the issue of a bit of honest debate? Senator BUTTON —It is all very well for Senator Chaney to come in here and spout motherhood cliches about honest debate, to occupy the position of the moral minority in Australian politics, which he does, and make a virtue of all that and say that other people retreat from honest debate but that only the Liberal Party here is capable of honest debate. I thought that Senator Powell made some telling comments about that. Political parties change their views from time to time. Is that dishonest? I do not know whether it is dishonest or not. I would not have thought so. I do not make these high sounding moral judgments in the political arena as the honourable senator did in his speech. We do not retreat from honest debate. It is just that in this particular period of political history we do not have much to debate with, and that is a tragic thing for the Australian community. A number of issues were raised by various senators. I found the discursive discussions by Senator Tate and Senator Durack interesting. I was intrigued to find that Senator Short had heard of Petronius and was prepared to quote him. I did not find that contribution or, indeed, the contributions from Sir Paul Hasluck as being particularly relevant. Nobody disagrees with that. Senator Short's speech was full of allegations about politicisation of the Public Service, vast growth in Public Service numbers, and things like that. All are totally unsubstantiated allegations. It is true that in the first two years of this Government, the size of the Public Service increased significantly. That has not been so in the last two years. In fact, I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister's statement of September last year on streamlining of the Public Service and the number of initiatives that have been taken by the Government to reduce Public Service size in the past year or so. There is no point in coming here in 1987 and attacking the Whitlam Government. I thought that honourable senators opposite would have got over that in the last period of opposition. I do not see much point in that. I thought the punch line of Senator Short's speech was his comment that the `mind boggles'. I would have thought that that was not an entirely new experience for him. I thought his mind was boggled before he started. I think to come in here and say that his mind boggles at what the Government has done in terms of streamlining departments, reducing the number of departments, streamlining administration and so on is slightly overstated and absurd. The honourable senator then indulged in a little fantasy about overlap and duplication and whether particular Ministers would get on well together, and things like that. It is in his political interest that they do not. He ought to realise that. We are quite happy that they will. However, if his Party has to face three more years in opposition, one of the best things that could happen to him would be for Ministers not to get on well together. We are prepared to take the risk of that and he ought to be as well because it may give his Party an opportunity that it has not exercised in the last three years. Senator Short says, `We want to make sure that we get it right'. So the Opposition wants to have a go at it in a Senate committee to make sure `we get it right'. What does the Opposition really want? Does it want us to get it right or does it want the confusion that the honourable senator predicted in the course of his speech will take place? The Opposition has to make up its mind what its sordid political priorities are in respect of that particular issue. One could go on debating these issues but I am not sure that there is any point in doing so because, in a decent debate, one has to be able to get one's teeth into something. There is nothing in the speeches from Opposition senators in connection with the two pieces of legislation before the Senate. I want to refer briefly to some serious contributions that were made to the debate. First of all, I have had the opportunity of discussing with Senator Powell of the Australian Democrats the amendment which they will move in the Committee stage of the legislation. While the Government will not support the amendment, we fully support the spirit of it and I will give some undertakings in relation to that in the committee stage. Senator Harradine raised an issue which he has raised on a number of other occasions. First of all, let me mention the question of bioethical issues which are the responsibility of Senator Ryan as Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. A number of bioethical issues arise in the health portfolio in terms of administration. In relation to those issues, Senator Ryan will have the responsibilities which have been reposed in her. However, the human rights legislation, for example, will still be within the purview of the Attorney-General. Nothing which this Government does in a legislative way will be affected by that allocation because these matters are ultimately dealt with by Cabinet before legislation is brought forward. Senator Harradine's important point was in relation to the question of youth. I am not trying to denigrate the point I have just referred to in saying that. However, the point that Senator Harradine gave most attention to was the question of youth employment in the Australian Public Service. Senator Harradine will be aware of the Budget Speech made last night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in which the question of youth unemployment was again addressed. The Government is increasing funding for traineeships from $14m to $45m in this Budget, providing for an extra 13,000 new trainees. At the same time, there will be a new program at a cost of $31m to provide short term vocational training opportunities for unemployed young people. I could refer to a number of other matters in the Budget Speech which relate to this issue. Senator Harradine, in the course of his remarks, drew attention to the fact that in 1966 junior employees constituted 22.2 per cent of the Public Service and that by 1985 the number had declined to 5.5 per cent. I am advised that 1966 was a peak year-an artificially high year in terms of the recruitment of junior employees. I just want to draw attention to one or two factors which influence representation of youth as permanent officers of the Australian Public Service. First of all, there have been changes in education patterns which have seen an increased proportion of youth completing final year high school. This has resulted in an increase in the average age of young people applying for appointment to the Public Service. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I ask him whether he adheres to the view he expressed in a speech on 7 August when he said: I fear however that though we have been going in the right direction, we have not been moving as quickly as the externally imposed circumstances demand. Given that the Budget, which has been described by Ross Gittins as the `she'll be right' or `do nothing' Budget, in fact does not change the economic settings which applied on 7 August, why did the Government bring down a Budget which will not significantly contribute to the more rapid movement sought by the Minister? Senator WALSH —At the time that speech was written, which was about a week before it was delivered, and indeed at the time it was delivered, the best expectation, given no significant policy changes on the outlay or revenue sides other than those which were referred to in the election policy speech, was that the Budget deficit would be about $1 billion. That expected outcome changed very substantially, principally for two reasons: first, it became apparent that the tax base broadening measures which the Government legislated for in the previous couple of years were yielding a great deal more revenue than had been anticipated at the time-an increase in revenue of the order of $1 billion. Also, largely as a function of the Budget being presented one month later than usual, we had two full months pay as you earn taxation receipts, which confirmed what some people might have earlier suspected, that is, that the PAYE tax base was larger than had been previously assumed. In other words, for reasons which could not have been foreseen with any degree of certainty at the end of July or even in the first week of August but which became much more certain, the Budget deficit, other things remaining equal, was about $1 billion less than was previously anticipated. That is a pretty significant movement. I am not particularly hung up on deficit fetishes, but a movement of that size is certainly significant. On a more general plane, I do not think anybody is pretending that all of the country's problems are solved. The Treasurer's comment, repeated I think many times yesterday, that the country has turned a corner is, I believe, to any rational person beyond dispute. One could also add that we are making progress in the right direction at a significant rate. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister tell the Senate the date that the Government learned of this extra $1 billion? Can he also tell the Senate whether he believes that $1 billion of extra tax revenue constitutes a change of settings which is going to significantly accelerate the process of adjustment which is required? Senator WALSH —In reply to the first part, I could tell Senator Chaney, but I will not. If he wants to know the answers to questions like that he had better start winning elections instead of losing them. I am not sure what he was getting at in the second part, but it seems to me that he is endorsing the notion that there is only one road to fiscal responsibility. There are, of course, two roads to fiscal responsibility, and most sensible people would use both to some extent. Senator MAGUIRE —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, refers to the recent election results. Is the Minister aware that in a great many rural and provincial electorates throughout Australia there were swings to the Government at the July election? What economic factors and policies has the Government noted as being of particular importance to rural and provincial Australia to which these swings can be attributed? Senator WALSH —As Senator Maguire's question suggests, there were in fact significant swings to the Government in a number of rural seats, in particular in the 22 seats targeted by the National Farmers Federation (NFF) as the seats in which it could destroy the Government. Indeed, in those 22 seats the Australian Labor Party (ALP) held all of the 11 seats it previously held and won three others from the Liberal Party or the National Party of Australia, and included a positive swing in all of those 22 seats targeted by the NFF. The overall two-party preferred vote swung to the ALP in the National Farmers Federation's 22 targeted seats by an average of 0.17 per cent. Let us face it: although the NFF tried to put a thin veneer of disguise over this, the objective of the leadership of the Federation was to get rid of the Labor Government. According to its account, it collected more than $10m for a political fighting fund. I am not sure how much of that it spent during the election campaign or, for that matter, how much it did in fact collect, but its purpose was to get rid of the Labor Government by concentrating on 22 marginal seats. As it turned out, the Government got a significant swing to it on average in those seats and in all but one of the seats which were already held. The conclusion that has to be drawn from that is that the people in the country are not fools, as the cabal of right wing ratbags which has hijacked the National Farmers Federation obviously assumed they were. In particular, those who follow these things will remember the very high profile campaign which the cabal that runs or has hijacked the NFF ran against the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax and which had negligible impact on the agricultural sector. It was not a question of pursuing issues which were of any particular concern or which had much relevance to the economic welfare of the agricultural sector. That agenda was set not with the interests of farmers in mind, but with the political interests in mind of the cabal of right wing ratbags who hijacked the organisation. Senator STONE —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer and refer him to the following statement appearing at page 11 of the Budget Speech: Now that we have eliminated the budget deficit we will be repaying $1,000 million of Commonwealth overseas debt this year and the same amount of domestic bonds. I ask the Minister: First, does he agree that, since our external balance of payments is in deficit, any such repayment of overseas debt by the Commonwealth Government simply means, as a matter of inexorable arithmetic, that an equal and offsetting amount of $1,000m will have to be borrowed from overseas by some other Australian resident? Secondly, does the Minister agree that, since the Budget is not in surplus, even on the basis of the creative accounting employed by the Treasurer in arriving at the figure for the deficit, the repayment of $1,000m, or any other figure, of Commonwealth domestic bonds in 1987-88 can be effected only by either drawing upon the Commonwealth's cash balances with the Reserve Bank of Australia, which is equivalent to printing money, or issuing other forms of Commonwealth securities, such as treasury notes, to the same $1,000m extent? Senator WALSH —In regard to the first part of the question-I think Senator Stone himself put in this qualification-other things being equal, the repayment of $1 billion of government debt held overseas would require an offsetting borrowing by someone else. I think that is a tautology, other things being equal. However, other things are not equal. This has some relevance to the question which Senator Stone asked me yesterday and which I have now had a chance to read thoroughly. One of the things which are not equal is that the $1 billion of asset sales which the Commonwealth proposes for this financial year reduces the public sector borrowing requirement which would otherwise have applied and also, in accordance with the internationally accepted accounting conventions, takes $1 billion off outlays. If those assets were sold on the Australian capital market-again this is a tautology, other things being equal-it would require that there be private borrowings $1 billion higher than they otherwise would be. But for this year other things are not equal. A major component-I shall not specify the figure the Government expects, but a very large component-of the $1 billion of asset sales will accrue from the sale of the surplus land at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. That will be sold on the Japanese capital market, not the Australian market. Senator Sheil —And taxed? Senator WALSH —No, we do not believe that it will be. That very large figure has to be deducted from the $1 billion Senator Stone had in mind. In regard to the retirement of domestic bonds, what Senator Stone said is correct, or at least to the extent I could get down the points he made; but if he looks at the Budget Papers in total-I cannot give a precise reference-he will find a specific reference to the bonds which are being retired being replaced substantially, if not entirely, by an issue of treasury notes. Senator STONE —If I may ask the Minister a supplementary question without canvassing that part of his reply which appeared to constitute a response to my question yesterday and without making a statement on the matter, I would simply point out that the decision to repay the $1,000m of Commonwealth debt overseas will mean, and must mean-I am sure the Minister would agree-- Senator Tate —What is the question? The PRESIDENT —Order! I am listening to ascertain whether there is a question. So far there has not been. Senator STONE —In these circumstances will the Minister agree that the appropriate answers to these two questions were yes and yes respectively? If so, will he indicate what was meant to be the purpose of this empty boast on page 11 of the Budget Speech? Senator WALSH —The `empty boast' reference is a particular interpretation. I would regard it just as a statement of fact. There is no empty boast. In regard to the two questions which Senator Stone asked yesterday and which he has raised again, I have already answered the second one. If the money were to be raised on the domestic capital market, an equivalent amount would have to be raised; but in this case other things are not equal, as I said, and the greater part of those borrowings will take place on the Japanese capital market, not the Australian market. The answer to Senator Stone's first question yesterday is that arithmetically the answer is yes-that is, that, if Government assets are sold within the same capital market and other things remain equal, Government borrowings would be reduced and private borrowings would be increased, unless money were taken from the consumption stream to finance the purchases on the private market. Even if that did not happen-and it is possible, indeed likely, that it would happen to some extent-even if the arithmetic worked out that way, there seems to be a perception in the capital market that there is a difference between governments borrowing for a certain purpose, for example to re-equip an airline, and private businesses borrowing in the same market for exactly the same purpose. In other words, even if the arithmetic were beyond question-there are a couple of doubts about that to which I have already referred-the market does not seem to agree that it is exactly the same thing. Senator Stone used to talk a lot at one time about rational expectations. It would appear that there are also some irrational expectations around, animal spirits and all that. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce seen a letter by Senator Macklin to the Editor of the Australian newspaper of today in which he criticises the views apparently expressed by the Minister on the inadequacy of research and teaching links between higher education institutions and industry? Will the Minister say whether Senator Macklin has correctly interpreted his views, and clarify his position on the issue? Senator BUTTON —I was about to say that I was surprised, but indeed I am not surprised that Senator Macklin should write such a letter-probably not on the basis of having read the speech I made, but on the basis of Press reports about which some other commentators, including a very distinguished educationist in Professor Karmel, have also seen fit to comment. I saw the letter. The speech identified three things which the tertiary education system should be doing and which I personally and other Ministers in this Government regard as very important. First, it should be producing graduates with breadth and depth of skills in various disciplines. Secondly, it should be engaging in basic and applied research, leading to new and improved products and services and technical skills. Thirdly, the tertiary education sector should offer expertise to industry. Senator Macklin's letter suggests that the Government took a totally utilitarian view of research. I regret to say that he tends to bind to the perennial argument as to the relative merits of basic and applied research. I did not seek to bind to that argument. I think there should be a balance between basic and applied research in tertiary institutions. I want to make the point that I went out of my way, in the speech to the seminar in question, to endorse the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Universities under Scrutiny, when I said that careerism, pre-professionalism and occupational programs have put general and liberal education on the run. I continued: This is a totally undesirable situation. Creativity and innovation are unlikely to be nurtured in an environment where only occupational and functional knowledge and skills are valued. However, I also make the point that high quality researchers are likely to become involved in both pure and applied research. There are some very distinguished Australian researchers who fall into that category-for example, Professor Graeme Clark, the inventor of the bionic ear and recipient of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd Australian of the Year award in 1985. It is important to clarify these issues because it is a very important debate about the future of our university sector in particular. I regret that Senator Macklin has embarked on the debate without reading, it appears, what he purported to criticise and to comment upon. Having said that, I think we have a long way to go in Australia in terms of achieving those objectives-for example, achieving the objectives of closer relationships between universities and industry, achieving the objectives where university and tertiary education expertise is offered to industry and achieving a balance between the basic and applied research funding in particular faculties. We have a long way to go in these matters and I do not think that anybody or any institution should be immune from criticism or comment about those matters just as I think that no politician-neither Senator Macklin nor myself-should be immune from comment or criticism about our views. I have seen the letter. I think it arises from a misinterpretation of what I in fact said, and I take the opportunity to correct that misinterpretation here. Senator MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. I refer the Minister to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's recent report Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education which, on page 85, describes mature age students as `one of the success stories of higher education' because, amongst other things, it has given greater opportunities for higher education to `disadvantaged groups such as women and those of low socio-economic status'. In view of this, what will be the impact on mature age students of the Government's decision in this Budget to approve an additional intake into higher education in 1988 of 5,800 school leavers but to provide additional funding for only 3,500 to 4,000 of these places? Does this mean a reduction in the enrolment of new mature age students of some 2,500, thus putting an end to the `success story' referred to by CTEC? Senator RYAN —I am sure that whatever the outcomes of the new decisions, they will not mean an end to the success story of mature age entrants. I will seek from Mr Dawkins a more specific response on the expectations of mature age enrolments for the next academic year. However, I point out to Senator Macklin that as we are constantly improving the participation rates of secondary students through to the end of Year 12 and as, for example, girls have, and have had for some time, a higher participation rate to the end of Year 12, the proportion of persons in the community needing to seek mature age entry is constantly being reduced. We now have a much different pattern of people, say those in their early twenties, and we are developing different patterns every year in terms of greater participation by disadvantaged groups. The great bulge of mature age students which we saw in the late 1970s and 1980s is no longer there. However, it is important to the Government's ongoing equity and economic objectives that mature age people have the opportunity for higher education and training. I am confident that they will continue to have such opportunities under the new arrangements and within the new range of places that have been described. However, I will seek further specific information about the division of new places for next year among the different age groups. Senator McKIERNAN —Can the Special Minister of State comment on allegations that a secret report of the Business Regulation Review Unit (BRRU) establishes that there will be a very high cost ratio for the private sector in the Australia Card program? Senator RYAN —There has been participation by the Business Regulation Review Unit in developing the costings of the Australia Card system. For example, the Unit was represented on the working party which considered the cost to the private sector of compliance with Australia Card uses. It helped determine the request for details, the organisations contacted and the follow-up and assessment of responses. The Unit was equally disappointed-as were other government agencies-at the paucity of the responses. I think that is an important point. We went out seeking and inviting submissions from the business sector about the cost implications to it and we did not get a very great response. However, we have been able to make some estimates of those partly because of the original assessments made by the BRRU. In addition to its role in the working party, the Unit also provided comments on reports to Cabinet on the assessment of private sector costs in the Australia Card cost benefit analysis. I must stress that these comments are not secret reports and do not provide alternative cost assessments. Both convention and law protect Cabinet documents from being made public and the Opposition, we expect, would wish to retain that protection if ever it got back into office. However, all documents relating to the assessment of private sector costs which can be made public have already been made available to Mr James Porter, MP, under a freedom of information request. Suggestions that the BRRU, had extrapolated a general theory of a ratio of two to one government to business paper burden cost to the Australia Card program are nonsense. In fact, Dr Moran, Director of the BRRU, stated that no such relationship was found in the Australia Card program. I take this opportunity to table a copy of a letter from Dr Moran to this effect. Senator SHORT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs, as the Minister responsible for information co-ordination. Is the Minister aware of a report in the Melbourne Herald on 24 August that the Government has agreed in principle to implement a national advertising campaign to `improve public awareness of its proposed Australia Card'? Can the Minister confirm these reports? Can he say whether the campaign will proceed and if so, when? What is the estimated cost of the campaign and where are the funds for it to be found in the Budget Estimates? Senator ROBERT RAY —Some consideration has been given to a government advertising campaign in relation to the Australia Card. No final decisions have yet been made. Further meetings will be held before a final decision is made. It is generally conceded that when there is a large item before the Government, some information program is entered into to have that explained. Because we have not yet made a final decision, I cannot anticipate any costs of such a potential campaign. Senator SHORT —I ask a supplementary question. What justification does the Government propose to give to the Australian people for such a blatant misuse of taxpayers' funds on a party political propaganda campaign? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sure that when Senator Short was the member for Ballarat between 1975 and 1980 he constantly raised in his own party room government advertising expenditure to support government programs. He is just being consistent here today in raising these particular matters. It has been the policy of all governments in recent years, be they Liberal or Labor, to use various information programs in which to sell various things to the public. It would be ridiculous ever to suggest that one should adopt certain proposals and then never have them explained. Senator VALLENTINE —I address my question to the Minister for Transport and Communications who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. It refers to the current situation in the Republic of Belau, sometimes referred to as Palau, in the western Caroline Islands, part of the United Nations Trust Territory of Micronesia administered by the United States since 1947 and lying about 2,500 kilometres north of Darwin. Senator Crichton-Browne —Thanks for the geography lesson. Senator VALLENTINE —That is the end of the geography lesson. Why has there been no apparent response from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the considerable public concern shown about the escalating level of violence in Belau in the past few weeks-in particular the murder of Mr Bings Bedor, father of two prominent supporters of the nuclear free constitution which Belauans have voted for since 1979, and intimidation of the judiciary which forced the Chief Justice of Belau to resign on 25 August because of threats to his family? Has the Australian Government made any representation to the United States Government asking it to respect the wishes of the people of Belau who have voted for their nuclear free constitution nine times in eight years? Finally, is the Government prepared to ask the United Nations Security Council to support the request of High Chief Yutaka Gibbons for a peacekeeping mission to be sent to Belau? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Vallentine's questions always seem to vary in inverse proportion to the size of the country or the territory with which she is dealing. There was a plebiscite in Palau on 21 August, observed by a visiting United Nations mission, which approved acceptance of the compact of free association with the United States by a vote of 73 per cent. Under that compact Palau will be self-governing in free association with the United States, which retains responsibility for defence and security matters. Earlier plebiscites failed to attain the then required 75 per cent majority. A referendum on 4 August amended the Constitution to enable the compact to be approved by a simple rather than that previous 75 per cent majority. The 4 August amendment does not remove the non-nuclear provisions of the Palau Constitution. The three-quarters majority is still required to approve the use, testing, storage or disposal of harmful substances, including nuclear weapons and waste. Under the compact the United States may not use, test or dispose of such harmful substances, and has the right to operate nuclear-capable or nuclear-propelled vessels and aircraft, under the `neither confirm nor deny' doctrine. The Australian Government considers that the compact has been negotiated and approved in a manner consistent with the rights of the Palau people to self-determination, believing that the decision now taken on the compact was a matter solely for the Government and people of Palau. Accordingly, this Government has not made any representations to the United States Government about Palau. As to the spate of violence in that country recently, we, of course, regret those acts. However, we do not consider it appropriate for a UN-sponsored peacekeeping force to visit the country. It is a matter for the appropriate Palau authorities to maintain the necessary law and order. I just add, finally, that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have responded in these terms to expressions of concern about Palau which have been addressed to the Government. Senator TAMBLING —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. I refer to the Budget Speech by the Treasurer last evening when he said: We are also developing services such as tourism into major earners of foreign exchange. Can the Minister confirm that this year's Budget includes a provision of only some $300,000 for improvements and, I believe, for maintenance of workshops and store facilities, at the Darwin Airport? Does the Minister agree that this makes a mockery of the Australian Labor Party's charade of support for tourism in that our major international northern airport remains nothing but a tin shed? Can the Minister confirm whether there are any current arrangements with private people for the development of an appropriate and proper airport at Darwin? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is an obvious need for an upgrading of the Darwin Airport terminal facilities and I have no doubt that, with the arrival in the Parliament in particular of Senator Collins for the Northern Territory, we will be hearing a good deal more on this subject in the near future. Of course, the big questions are what kind of a terminal facility it will be and who will pay for it, and subsidiary questions as to where it will be put and so on seem to have exercised a lot of enthusiastic concern in recent times. I have been holding off addressing this question until the future of the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) became clear-as it now has in the light of the Budget decision about airport terminals and the announcements that have been made about the start-up date for the Corporation in consequence of that. Darwin is one of the airports that are not yet incorporated in the FAC but which it is intended will be in the future. It is, accordingly, a question of major capital investment, which I think can probably be best addressed in the context of the establishment of the new FAC early next year. I have already had a preliminary discussion with Mr Fred Finch, the Northern Territory Minister for Transport and Works, on this subject a few weeks ago. We are in the process of making further arrangements to talk with him, and I can assure the honourable senator that the airport's needs are acknowledged. It is just a question of how they will be paid for, by whom and when and where the facility is to be located. They are all questions on my agenda and they will be addressed sensibly in due course. Senator BOLKUS —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he heard former Treasurer Howard commenting on the Budget and the state of the Australian economy on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program AM this morning. Can the Minister say whether this is the same John Howard who had major arithmetic problems with his calculations prior to the 11 July election? Can the Minister also say whether Mr Howard's comments on AM this morning contained similar arithmetic inaccuracies? Senator WALSH —There was an arithmetic inaccuracy in Mr Howard's comment this morning but I think it would be going too far to describe it as an inaccuracy similar to the spectacular incompetence displayed by the Opposition when it cut out and pasted together its taxation policy during the election campaign. I do not think we can anticipate in our lifetime to see again such a dramatic and spectacular demonstration of incompetence from any political party or any political party leader as we were fortunate enough to witness back in the middle of July. Specifically, on the wireless this morning, Mr Howard said: Business investment is worse now than it was and it has been at any time over the last 25 years. I mean, business investment as a percentage of GDP in this country now is lower than it has been at any time, I think, going right back to the Whitlam period and beyond. So we really are at very low levels. I table a copy of the table that shows business investment. In fact, business investment as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1986-87, the year to which Mr Howard was referring, was 10.5 per cent, which was a higher percentage than in all but three of the 14 years since 1971-72. Of course, the Government would like to see a higher level of business investment spending and expects to see a significantly higher level this year. There is one other relevant point that should be made about this. The figures for total business equipment investment show a fall in both 1985-86 and 1986-87 relative to the immediately preceding year. However, that aggregate figure masks a very substantial change in the composition of business investment; in particular, the very marked decline in the purchase of motor vehicles by business during that period. When the changes in motor vehicle purchases are quarantined from the rest of business equipment investment we find that business investment-all these figures are in real terms-increased by 7 per cent in 1986-87. So it is the quality of investment that matters as well as the quantity. On the quality of investment, for example, the $650m which is being sunk into the new Brisbane Airport as a sop to the demon from the north by John Howard and Malcolm Fraser, in their declining years in government, and for which there is no functional need, is very poor quality investment. The increase in business investment expected this year is expected to be concentrated in the internationally traded sector of the economy; in other words, in the area where we need it most. One would expect also a low level of motor vehicle purchases by business. The final point that ought to be made about the decline in motor vehicle purchases by business, which is almost certainly associated with the introduction of the fringe benefits tax, is that a level of motor vehicle purchases was being sustained by a tax shelter. In other words, motor vehicles for which there was no functional need were being purchased in large volumes by business. To put the point another way, until the introduction of the tax reform measures which this Government has legislated in the last couple of years, a significant amount of what was in fact consumption expenditure was being misdefined as business investment. That has now been cleaned up. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The point of order simply is that the Minister is clearly debating the question. I ask you to call him to order and enable other questions to be asked. The PRESIDENT —Senator Chaney, I have no power as to how a Minister shall answer a question. I agree that he was beginning to debate the issue but I think the answer is finished. Senator WALSH —Yes, it is. Senator KNOWLES —Will the Minister for Transport and Communications advise the Senate why officers of his Department ignored representations from experienced Coastwatch pilots during the recent uncertainty about the entire contract? If the Minister is unable to account for their actions, will he give a commitment to include this matter in the inquiry that he has already stated he intends to undertake into the tendering process that led to the whole fiasco? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am all in favour of short questions but that question was so short I have no idea what Senator Knowles was talking about when she referred to representations from experienced pilots. I have seen some references in the Press to representations about the nature of the aircraft being inappropriate for the task. Maybe that is what she is talking about but there is no issue there because the question as to whether one goes for turbine driven planes or the ordinary piston driven ones is wholly a matter of economic tradeoffs as between maintenance and running costs, as no doubt Senator MacGibbon will tell us at nauseous lengths in the next Estimates committee hearings. If the honourable senator has any further contribution to make to my understanding of the problem to which she refers, I would be only too delighted if she put that question on notice. Senator KNOWLES —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I will read it slowly this time and see whether the Minister can understand it. Will the Minister advise the Senate as to why officers of his Department ignored the representations made directly to the Department-- Senator Gareth Evans —What representations? Senator KNOWLES —From the Coastwatch pilots in-- Senator Gareth Evans —Which Coastwatch pilots? About what? Senator KNOWLES —If the Minister wants me to give the names and addresses, I will do so later because there were many representations which the Department refused to answer. Will the Minister give the Senate an answer as to why his Department saw fit not to answer the representations to his Department? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Knowles gives me some further information in writing as to the particular representations to which she is referring, I would be delighted to give her an answer. Senator FOREMAN —I direct a question to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I draw his attention to an article in the Weekend Australian of 29-30 August about growth in Australian exports of motor vehicle components. In that article it was reported that exports of car parts would grow considerably in the next few years. Can the Minister indicate the likely size of this growth and the major overseas markets in which Australian manufacturers are gaining contracts? Senator BUTTON —I just happened to have the article in my hand as Senator Foreman rose to ask that question. Senator Foreman is correct in saying that the author of the article estimates that exports of Australian motor vehicle components could grow from their current level of $480m to some $1.2 billion by 1990. I cannot personally confirm the validity of that estimate. However, substantial growth is occurring in Australian car part exports, largely as a result of the depreciation of the dollar. Happily, some other factors are also involved in that export activity. The key overseas markets providing growth for exports are Japan, the United States of America and Europe. We can expect further growth as Australian manufacturers increase their world competitiveness and, I would add, if they increase their quality performance. The Government's passenger motor vehicle plan is, of course, aimed at assisting this process. However, I should say that the review of the passenger motor vehicle plan which is presently taking place will be designed to ensure that its original objectives are achieved. I announced that the proposed review was foreshadowed when the plan was first announced in May 1984. Once this review is completed the Government will consider whether changes in detail or fine tuning are required to ensure that the plan's objectives are met. Of course the plan's objectives were very much directed towards the international competitiveness of the component sector and its capacity to export to the sorts of countries I have mentioned. Senator MacGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Communications. Will the Government permit Telecom Australia to go ahead with its intention to remove public telephones from service? Does the Government recognise that a monopoly such as Telecom has a social obligation to provide an essential service to pensioners and the needy who cannot afford the exorbitant Telecom charges for their own phone? Will the Government give Telecom some of the facts of commercial life, namely, that the more opportunities there are to use phones, the greater the profits for that body, if it can be run properly? Senator GARETH EVANS —Much question begging is going on in this chamber today including, in this instance, the proposition that Telecom intends to remove public telephones. I am not aware of any such plan or of any such announcement and I would welcome some further information on that subject before I reply. Clearly, my view and that of the Government would be that the provision of a public telephone service of an adequate quantity and quality is one of the social obligations that an organisation such as Telecom clearly accepts and which must be recognised by any government in any assessment of the funding required and the sources of funds required for the organisation to meet those obligations. If Senator MacGibbon is able to give me some more detail as to what he is referring in this respect, it is certainly an issue I would be happy to take up. Senator AULICH —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security seen a report in today's Melbourne Herald claiming that the family assistance package `appears to fall short of the boast that more than one million children will benefit'? Is the Melbourne Herald's claim accurate and, if not, exactly how many children will be assisted by the Government's comprehensive family assistance package? Senator RICHARDSON —I have seen an article by Kate Legge in this morning's Melbourne Herald which claims that the Government may be `tilting at the truth' by including potential beneficiaries of the child support scheme. That statement is wrong. That group has not been included in the $1m estimate. It is not a rubbery estimate. In December the full family assistance package will immediately benefit around 440,000 children from working families and around 740,000 children from those in the social security system-children of the unemployed and the sick. Around one million children will benefit from this package by Christmas. Families on less than $300 a week will get $22 a week for children under 13 years and $28 a week for 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds. Apart from the family allowance supplement, we must not forget disabled children. From November the new child disability allowance of $112 will replace the handicapped child allowance of $92 a month and it will be paid without an income test applying. In November increased payments will benefit 32,000 children and up to another 10,000 children, who missed out in the past because of the distinction between severely and substantially disabled children, may benefit from the family assistance package now that that distinction has been dropped. The family assistance package is the cornerstone, the centrepiece, of our new deal for the neediest families in our community, but it is not on its own. It stands with a number of other measures that have been taken in the Budget, which is a good start. Within half an hour of Treasurer Keating delivering the Budget last night, the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd brought down its interest rates to 14.5 per cent. Other banks will follow. There will be an extra 5,800 higher education places for young school leavers. An increase in funding from $14m to $45m will provide places for 13,000 new trainees. An amount of $31m will be spent on vocational training for the young unemployed. Some 140,000 new jobs were created last year. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understand that the question directly related to the benefits that will apply to one million children. The answer seems to have extended into a general description of the Government's social welfare program. I ask you to call the Minister to order since he has answered the question he was asked. The PRESIDENT —The Minister's answer is straying away from the original question of social security, but I will listen carefully to the rest of it. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr President. It is worth careful attention. Australian families have benefited enormously from this Budget, especially those in need. That is why this Government was elected. It is a government that has not forgotten where it came from. It is a government of which we on this side are justifiably proud. Those opposite did nothing in seven years for the needy in this community. We have acted. We have done the job. Senator WALTERS —I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. It concerns the identity card. The Minister will be aware that, once part II of the proposed identity card Bill is proclaimed, banks and other financial institutions will not be permitted to process transactions against accounts held with them unless a current ID card has been sighted and noted in accordance with the Bill. This means that a person receiving a cheque from another party will not be sure whether the value of the cheque will be honoured in the normal manner. The Minister must recognise that this situation could bring the business and financial sectors in our economy to their knees within days of proclamation of part II of the Bill, even if a small proportion of the population chooses not to apply for an ID card. What action or amendment to the Bill does the Minister propose to ensure that this situation does not occur? Senator RYAN —It is the case that once the Australia Card system is in place holders of a bank account will need to use their Australia Card to get that bank account in process again. They will have a period of about 18 months in which to do that. If they choose not to do so or if for a period of time they do not do so, their bank account will continue to accrue interest and in every way be of benefit to them other than that they will not be able to draw on it. Senator Puplick —Except that they will not be able to get it. Senator RYAN —They will be accruing interest. However, that situation does not go to Senator Walters's question about cheques because, whenever a person receives a cheque, that cheque has to be cleared through the banking system before the recipient receives the benefit of that money. So I do not think there is any relevance to the question. Senator WALTERS —I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The situation will apply to banks and financial institutions which may have been dealing with customers for the past 10 years and which usually make sure that their cheques do not bounce. I ask the Minister again what amendment she proposes to make sure that a cheque handed to an employer, a businessman, does not bounce because the person writing the cheque does not have an ID card. The PRESIDENT —Order! We have had two supplementaries today which have been straight reruns of the original question. The Minister can answer if she wishes. Senator RYAN —All cheques are cleared through the system, whether or not they are paid to someone with whom banks have been dealing for 10 years. All cheques are cleared through the banking system before the recipient's account is credited with the amount written in the cheque. The same situation will prevail after the Australia Card system is in place. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance, representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy and the Treasurer. Last financial year how many primary producers paid fringe benefits tax (FBT) and what amount of fringe benefits tax did they pay? Senator WALSH —This question gets to the core of the justification, or rather the non-justification, of the National Farmers Federation's strident campaign against the fringe benefits tax. The President of the National Farmers Federation was reported in the Australian on 15 May last year as saying that the ban that the National Farmers Federation was then advocating on the payment of the tax-that is, defying the law of the land-would affect 30,000 to 40,000 people. He did not explicitly state that it would affect 30,000 to 40,000 farmers but in context I do not think there can be any doubt that that is the way it should be read. The Budget Papers published yesterday show that in the last financial year only 5,100 primary producers paid FBT. That is, less than 3 per cent of primary producers paid any fringe benefits tax. I am surprised that the honourable senator opposite paid any tax of any sort, actually. The collective fringe benefits tax liability of that tiny minority of 3 per cent, or slightly under 3 per cent, of farmers amounted to $9.2m, or an average of just over $1,800 each. I doubt very much whether many of that tiny minority of 3 per cent could reasonably be described as average farmers, that is, in the way that farmers like to think of farmers, which excludes business people from other areas who have invested in agriculture but who do not have anything personally or directly to do with the operation of the farm. This exposes, if any further exposure was needed, that right wing cabal-that cabal of right wing ideologues-who hijacked the National Farmers Federation and who conned the rest of the organisation into adopting a strident campaign in opposition to the tax reform measures of this Government, the capital gains tax, and the fringe benefits tax which is now known to have affected less than 3 per cent of farmers. I hope that the other 97 per cent of farmers, some of whom were lulled or conned into allowing themselves to be led down this political path by the right wing ideologues who had captured the organisation will deal with that little cabal. Senator POWELL —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Small Business confirm that the policy regarding Commonwealth funding of non-governmental representatives on Australian Government delegations to international conventions, such as the Antarctic Treaty system, is that no financial assistance will be provided because the Government has decided that it cannot afford the costs of funding non-government organisation (NGO) delegates and because it does not wish to set a precedent? If this is so, can he explain why, whilst government departments are being requested to restrict expenditure, the Minister unilaterally decided to fund one non-government member of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee as his personal representative on the Australian Government delegation to the Antarctic minerals negotiations in Uruguay in May this year? In the light of this precedent, will the Government be funding other NGO representatives on future Government delegations? Senator BUTTON —This question specifically arises from Antarctic matters. Senator Richardson, who is responsible for Antarctic matters, will answer. Senator RICHARDSON —The delegation member to which Senator Powell refers was Dr Gillian Triggs, a member of the Antarctic Science Advisory Committee which advises the Minister on priorities for Antarctic sciences. She attended the tenth session of the special Antarctic Treaty consultative meeting on minerals, which met in May 1987 in Montevideo. Dr Triggs is a lecturer in law at the University of Melbourne with a special interest in international, and particularly Antarctic, law. Dr Triggs did not attend the meeting as a representative of the Department but rather as a representative of the Minister, Mr Jones. It was appropriate, therefore, that her attendance be funded by the Government. It was cleared through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, and her attendance cannot be equated with the situation applicable to the attendance at such meetings by the representatives of community interest groups. Dr Triggs was acting as a representative of Mr Jones. There are no proposals at the moment to do anything similar. However, in the event of another such conference I would consider sending another representative, particularly if the person were as well qualified as Dr Triggs. Senator WATSON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. It is true that the Minister has yet to appoint an advisory committee under the Plant Variety Rights Act to recommend gazettal of species and genuses for protection and that, consequently, the Act is effectively inoperative? Will the Minister undertake to appoint an advisory committee as a matter of urgency? Senator WALSH —I cannot undertake to do the latter. Whether Mr Kerin has appointed a committee, I do not know. I will find out. Senator DEVLIN —I ask the Minister for Transport and Communications: What is the significance of the successful launch this morning of the Aussat 3 satellite? Senator GARETH EVANS —I suppose the main significance was for the morale of the insurance underwriters who would have had to pay out about $85m if it had blown up. Australia's third satellite was successfully launched from the space centre at Kourou in French Guiana at approximately 10.45 this morning, Australian time, after about two hours of technical delays and about six minutes after I left the Sydney control centre for the airport to come here for Question Time. So, unfortunately, I missed it. It does complete the first generation program for Australia's domestic satellites and will provide significant new capacity for Australia in the satellite telecommunications field. In particular, it is worth emphasising that this will now enable the provision of commercial television services to well over half a million Australians who have hitherto been denied such services throughout the remoter parts of Australia. It will enable the remote commercial television services, in particular in central and northern Australia and Queensland, and various bits of south-eastern Australia which do not get access to commercial television to get it. Aussat 3 carries a communications payload which is similar to that of the first two satellites, but it will have the capacity for coverage over the whole of the South West Pacific region, including New Zealand. So it is very significant in terms of trans-Tasman relations and the potential for further communications development in New Zealand in particular. It does further give Aussat scope to accommodate the growing demand from potential satellite users whether they are in the broadcasting industry, in the commercial sector or, of course, in government. Finally, the launch augurs well for the future of satellite based services in Australia, following as it does directly on the Government's approval a few days ago of the issuing of tenders for the second generation of Aussat satellites which is scheduled to be brought into service in the early 1990s. It would be appropriate if the Parliament were, through me, to convey its congratulations to the Chairman, David Hoare, the Chief Executive, Graham Gosewinckel, and all the Australian Aussat management and staff for what has been a very spectacularly successful enterprise culminating today. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a statement on the basis that I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —It is reported in the West Australian newspaper today that in the State Parliament of Western Australia yesterday the leader of the House for the Labor Government of that State, Mr Pearce, claimed that I had attended meetings of the Liberal Party's Management Committee on four occasions in April to consider ways of starting a $20m run on the Teachers Credit Society Ltd. It is further alleged that the meeting was also attended by the President of the Liberal Party, Mr Keith Simpson and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr MacKinnon. I totally reject the allegations. They are untrue. I attended no Management Committee meetings in April. On checking with the Liberal Party I am advised that the last meeting I attended was in November 1986. I have never discussed the Teachers Credit Society with Mr MacKinnon at any time. The only time it has been mentioned in a conversation between me and Mr Simpson was in a context of recent ALP smears which were conducted by the Premier and one of his Ministers about Mr Simpson when I expressed my regret and disgust at what had occurred. I challenge Mr Pearce to repeat his defamatory and unfounded allegations about me outside the Parliament. Debate resumed. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.05) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was replying to some matters raised by honourable senators in the debate. Particularly I was replying to some points made by Senator Harradine about youth employment in the Australian Public Service. Senator Harradine made the point that juniors constituted 22.2 per cent of the permanent officers in the Service in 1966 and that that had reduced progressively to 5.5 per cent in 1985. There are a number of factors which have influenced that decline and I will refer briefly to them. Firstly, I refer to the changes in education patterns which have seen an increased proportion of youth completing final year high school, resulting in an increase in the average age of young people applying for and gaining appointment. Secondly, there are changes in the proportion of young people electing to complete tertiary education before entering the work force and generally more intense competition for positions resulting from changes in the labour market generally. Much of this has to do, of course, with increased retention rates. Thirdly, there are changes in legislative provisions for appointments, most notably the abolition of discriminatory practices such as the marriage bar and age limits. I take that to mean that there has been a greater accessibility for older people, married women and so on, to the Public Service work force. Finally, there is the question of reductions in overall appointment rates for the Australian Public Service due to constraints on the growth of the service and to a decline in overall separation rates. Those matters are offered as some explanation of what has happened between 1986 and 1987 in terms of the participation rate of young people in permanent work in the Public Service. Having said that, Senator Harradine really directed a question when he said that Mr Willis and others were concerned about it but what were they doing about it. I referred Senator Harradine earlier to the Budget statement of last night and to a number of measures in it which were directed to the general question of youth unemployment. I add to that in respect of the Public Service that it is expected that the number of young people entering the Australian Public Service will increase through the Government's Australian traineeship system. Under the system some 770 officer trainees were taken in on two intakes during 1986 in a range of departments and authorities in all States and Territories. Seven hundred and eighty-eight office trainees have so far been taken in on three intakes this year with about 67 still to be taken on in New South Wales and Victoria as part of the third intake. A large number of the 1986 trainees will be appointed to the Australian Public Service on completion of their traineeships this year. Traineeships in other employment areas in the Public Service are also being examined. The Government recently announced that from 1988, whenever occupations are covered by traineeship arrangements, recruitment of 16- to 18-year-olds without year 12 into the Australian Public Service will be undertaken only via the traineeship system. I have just referred to the figures involved. These arrangements could create some 1,500 traineeships in 1988-a significant increase in the number of traineeships offered this year. This, I believe, demonstrates a Government commitment to start redressing the long term decline in the share of young people in Commonwealth employment. The new Public Service Commission, which is the subject of debate in this chamber at present, will also be addressing the problem of low youth application rates and low acceptance rates by youth. It is considering better targeted recruitment campaigns, the timing of selection tests to maximise the number of youth applicants, et cetera. That relates to the school year. The Australian Public Service Joint Council has established a sub-committee to examine youth employment in the Australian Public Service and the terms of reference of the sub-committee are geared towards examining policy alternatives aimed at increasing the employment of young people in the Australian Public Service. Senator Harradine will, of course, appreciate that those things are designed to reverse the trend of recent years. They will take a little time to take effect, but the Government believes that they will be significant in addressing some of the problems to which the honourable senator referred. Senator Harradine —Do you think some of my moaning had something to do with it? Senator BUTTON —Well, I am quite prepared to allocate largess where it is due and certainly the honourable senator has been very persistent about this issue. I acknowledge that. Senator Harradine also asked some questions about bioethics and the allocation of bioethics matters to Senator Ryan as Minister Assisting the Minister for Health and Community Services. I am advised that the Australian Health Ministers Conference-comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers-has agreed to set up a national bioethics consultative body covering the broad scope of bioethical issues. Senator Ryan, as the Commonwealth Minister, is to take the lead in that group in the further development of this policy and in the establishment of proposed advisory structures in the area of bioethics. The Attorney-General, however, retains the responsibility for human rights issues generally and, subject to Cabinet, would be responsible for any human rights legislation which, in my interpretation, includes the various matters to which Senator Harradine referred in his earlier comments. Senator Short in his speech made some comments about Public Service growth which I found somewhat elusive in the sense that I do not quite know what is required from me by way of response. It is true that in the year 1982-83 there was a 5.49 per cent growth in the Australian Public Service. For most of that year, of course, the Public Service was under the administration of the former Liberal Government. In the year 1983-84, that is, the first full year of the Labor Government, there was a 4.28 per cent growth in the Australian Public Service. In the year 1984-85 there was a 2.37 per cent growth and in 1985-86 a 1.81 per cent growth. I said in my earlier comments about what Senator Short had to say that there had been a significant growth in the early years of this Government, that part of that growth was inherited from the Liberal Government and that there has been a decline in growth in the years 1984-85 and 1985-86, and of course a further decline in the current year. I think I have addressed the main matters that I was asked to address, which I regard as points of substance made by honourable senators in the course of the debate as distinct from points of merely passing rhetorical interest. I thank those senators who have contributed points of substance and I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCoulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Baume, Peter Zakharov, A. O.Lewis, A. W. R. Reynolds, M. E. Question so resolved in the negative. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT —The question now is that the Ministers of State Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Aulich, T. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Haines, J.Black, J. R. Harradine, B.Bolkus, N. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R.Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. Ray, RobertCoulter, J. R. Richardson, G. F.Crowley. R. A. Ryan, S. M.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, J. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Michael Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G.Chapman, H. G. P. Short, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Tambling, G. E. J.Hamer, D. J. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, PeterReynolds, M. E. Lewis, A. W. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bills. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.26) —by leave-In respect of the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987, I move: (1) Page 10, clause 15, proposed paragraph 22 (3) (f), line 4, leave out ``2'', insert ``3''. (2) Page 10, clause 15, after proposed subsection 22 (5), insert the following new subsection: `` `(5a) One of the members nominated under paragraph (3) (f) shall be a person who has particular expertise in the implementation and management of equal employment opportunity programs as defined in section 22b.'' Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.27) —The Government is not disposed to accept the amendments moved by Senator Powell. If I might say so, as I have already indicated to Senator Powell, we fully understand the spirit in which the amendments have been moved and regard that as consistent with the views of the Government on these matters. However, there are a number of reasons which I wish to advance as to why the Government is not keen to accept the amendments. Senator Powell will be well aware that clause 15-proposed new section 22 (1)-of the Administrative Arrangements Bill 1987 provides for the Board in the following terms: (1) There is hereby established a body to be known as the Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board. (2) The functions of the Board are: (a) to advise the Commonwealth Government on significant issues relating to the management of the Australian Public Service; and (b) to be a forum for consideration of major management activities affecting the Australian Public Service as a whole. The Government's view is that the functions of the Board are clearly related to major management issues across the breadth of the Australian Public Service. The proposed membership of the Board reflects that. It does not include specific subject matter expertise on the Board in relation to any particular matter such as equal employment opportunities. There are other forums in which specific matters of this kind can be discussed, such as the Joint Council and its standing committees on women in the Service and the equal employment opportunity minority groups. On the question of equal employment opportunity generally, the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit of Mr David Block recommended: devolve responsibility for equal employment opportunity . . . to departments with Department Heads being required to report progress in [that area] in their annual reports to the Parliament-the Government would emphasise that these activities are to be maintained at least at their present level and the Government may wish to maintain a very small monitoring unit with the new [Public Service] Commission . . . Subsequently, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has endorsed the maintenance of a monitoring capability in the Commission. As recommended by the Efficiency Scrutiny Unit, equal employment opportunity will be maintained at least at its present level and departments will continue to be required to report progress in their annual reports to Parliament. There is no intention to amend the relevant section of the Public Service Act other than to replace the word `Board' with the word `Commissioner'. The Commission will have an identified Equal Employment Opportunity Unit in its structure. First the Commission will develop service-wide statistical indicators of performance and monitor performance using the continuous record of personnel. Secondly, it will assist agencies in developing agency specific indicators and including them in their programs. Thirdly, it will observe equal employment opportunity principles throughout its work of developing policy for personnel management and in the staffing and training of the Senior Executive Service. Fourthly, it will conduct high level policy development and provide advice on equal employment opportunity to Australian Public Service agencies. Evidence of the Government's commitment to equal employment opportunity is included in the Budget Speech in the references to and the sums of money appropriated to the question of Aboriginal employment development policy. Insofar as recruitment to the Public Service is concerned, the Commission will have responsibility for overall recruitment policy, including the approval of selection and assessment procedures and equal employment opportunity monitoring. This will ensure the effectiveness of the development of, for example, the Aboriginal development policy in placing Aboriginal people in the Australian Public Service. I said at the beginning of my remarks that the Government appreciated the spirit of the amendment but is not disposed to accept it because, again as I said at the beginning, the Board is a small body with advisory functions in respect of overall management issues and there will be within the purview of that body an equal employment opportunity unit and the existing mechanisms relating to equal employment opportunity will be maintained and enhanced. For that reason the Government is not disposed to accept the Democrats' amendment, but of course the amendment will be remembered and the Government will pursue these issues as quickly as possible. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.31) —The Opposition first saw this amendment before the luncheon suspension today when Senator Powell indicated that she proposed to move it. I mention that because it was not possible for the Opposition, in its full party meeting, to consider the proposition which had been put forward by the Australian Democrats. I was concerned to examine it on behalf of the Opposition to see whether it was required to ensure that equal opportunity principles were maintained in Public Service employment, a principle that the Opposition certainly embraces without any reservation, and whether it appeared that the change suggested by Senator Powell was necessary to achieve that. I would like to thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for making his officials available for a brief discussion on the matters, when I was able to obtain the information which he has now put before the Committee on the equal opportunity provisions which will be in place, under the revised arrangements, to assist the Public Service to meet its equal opportunity objectives. The Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board, the body which would be affected by this amendment, is made up of a number of senior public servants: the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Commissioner of the Public Service, the Secretary to the Department of Industrial Relations, and the Secretary to the Department of Finance; and then there is freedom to nominate other Secretaries at the discretion of the Prime Minister. Then there is room for two outsiders, people who are not part of that upper echelon of the Public Service, to be appointed. One is to be nominated after consultation with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and is presumably to represent trade union interest in some way; and the other is a person with management expertise from the private sector. I assume that the interest of the Government in having that sort of person flows from the same interest it had in appointing Mr David Block to advise it on the structure of the Public Service. I think that has proved to be an excellent appointment and, as the debate on the substance of the Bill illustrated, the ultimate results of his work have been to produce a pattern which is broadly in line with what the Opposition has been advocating. So we can see the force of having somebody from the private sector. The question which I think then has to be addressed is whether there is an interest in equal opportunity in employment which is not going to be adequately looked after if there is not some additional special representative. The point which weighed heaviest with me in determining that I thought such a person was not necessary was the point that has now been made by the Minister in committee; namely, that there will be an identified equal opportunity unit within the formal structure so that there will be a continuous process of advice in that area which will take into account the concerns which have been raised by this amendment. In other words, this is an area which is being catered for within the formal administrative machinery. I think anybody who has had anything to do with the people who staff that machinery would know that they are usually people with a very strong commitment to the principles of equal opportunity. Certainly that has been my experience. When thinking about the question outside the area of discrimination on the grounds of sex, and in looking at problems of Aboriginal employment, for example, where there are major long term problems that require the long term dedication of government to achieving improvement, it does seem to me that the sorts of mechanisms which have been set up by the Government are substantially appropriate and do not require the insertion of some representative on this advisory board with particular expertise in that field. Having to deal with this matter in the short time that I have had to consider it, and after consultation with a few of my colleagues, I indicate that the Opposition will not support the amendment. There is absolutely no reason why the people who are appointed under proposed new section 22 (3) (f), the people nominated in writing by the Prime Minister, should not have background expertise in that and other areas. I draw that to the Government's attention. Similarly the Government has a fair amount of room to move in terms of the people it appoints as Secretaries. Obviously, given the fact that three lots of legislation have been introduced in the last three years on the question of equal opportunity, I think it would be fair to say that the Government will be bearing that in mind in making appointments to this Board. They are the reasons why we have decided not to support an amendment of the sort which is being pursued by Senator Powell. We hope that there might be some other opportunities to look at this issue of equal employment opportunity again. It is clear that the Government has rethought some of the administrative approaches and has changed some of the administrative arrangements which were put in place. It may well be that we could have an opportunity on some other occasion to discuss the effectiveness of these new procedures after they have been in place for some time. We will not be supporting the amendment, although again, in common with the leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), I would say that we totally support the sentiment behind the amendment, namely, the maintenance of equal opportunity principles in Commonwealth employment. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.37) —I thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for his response and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) for his comments. It is somewhat comforting to be assured of the maintenance of an equal employment opportunity unit within the new Public Service arrangements. However, I do have some questions which I think are important in this context. I have to say, first, that I am disappointed by the rejection of the amendment to secure a position on the new Board under the provisions of this legislation for a person whose specific responsibility and expertise is in the area of equal employment opportunity-for one particular reason, that is, that all too often, while the issues of equal opportunity may be there in the body of thought and action in any organisation or group, they are all too often not there in the upper echelons. We see that on the front benches of the Government and the Opposition and in the proportion of women and of course other disadvantaged groups in decision-making positions. That alone is a reason for suggesting quite strongly that, in the case of the Public Service, the peak advisory board having a person directly designated with this responsibility and a person known for having this expertise would be a very important step in the sort of example which this morning in my speech on the second reading I suggested that I believe the Government has a responsibility to set. For that reason we will pursue this amendment to a division. However, the question that I need to have answered, to give greater comfort both to the Democrats and to a range of other groups who are very concerned about this issue in the restructure of the Public Service, relates to the size of the unit which it is intended will be involved. We are talking of the need to continue a process which is under way but which already is far behind its proposed timetable. At the moment there are 45 departments, or a figure at about that level, which are without approved equal employment opportunity plans or which still have to set up their plans. At the moment this is all a little speculative because what is a department, who is in what department and so on is difficult to ascertain, as I discovered when working on a question without notice this morning. We are something like half way through the established program, as I understand it. That is just in the setting up of approved plans. The monitoring process still has to go on in all departments once they have their plans set up. It is important to be assured that the unit that is set up is not simply window dressing. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is not sincere in his understanding of the issue, but we would be very concerned if the unit to be established were not of sufficient size to be able to carry out a big ongoing task and one which already is not moving at the pace we would like to see. The unit has a range of tasks and the Minister has outlined those as seen by the Government. Furthermore, although the Minister suggested that the Management Advisory Board is made up of people who have a broad management role, he said that it did not include specific expertise. I would challenge that statement because it is specifically suggested that the two people who are to be appointed under proposed section 22 (3) (f) in writing by the Prime Minister be people of specific expertise in relation, on the one hand, to trade unions and, on the other hand, to the private sector. The argument for a third person with specific expertise in the area of equal employment opportunity, understanding and dedication to seeing that the opportunities of the disadvantaged are met in Public Service employment is as important as, and to me more important than, having someone whose background is sufficiently expert in trade union matters or in the private sector. Senator Chaney is tilting at windmills if he thinks that either one of those two people will be a comfort to people concerned about equal opportunity, or that the prime ministerial appointments will cover our desire for someone on that Board with an interest in equal employment opportunity. For example, finally the trade unions have managed the gigantic number of three women on their executives, and one woman has advanced to a top executive position at last. This has happened despite many years of attempts at affirmative action. That does not lead us to have very much confidence that this is the area where we might find someone specially devoted to equal employment opportunity. Certainly someone could be devoted, but the trade union track record is not good enough. I do not think there are any women in the union movement, in the Australian Labor Party or on the Government side who would be prepared to say that that record is good enough. The record in the private sector is also poor and women in the private sector are still clustered in the lower paid, lower status employment areas. To date neither the private nor the public sector has been able to advance the interests of women and other disadvantaged groups significantly. I accept the Minister's personal concern in this area. There has to be some scepticism, in our view, of undertakings in this kind of environment. For that reason I would ask the Minister to attempt to assure us at least that the unit to be set up will be adequate and will be able to carry out the big job that is ahead. I underline our disappointment that such a key position as a member of the new Board will not be given to someone whose specific interest, expertise and brief are in the area of equal employment opportunity. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.45) —Perhaps I can address one or two points made by Senator Powell. In earlier comments I indicated the Government's main position. There will be nine people in the unit. It is a matter of judgment whether that is enough. Listening to Senator Powell's speech, I felt at one point that if the figure were 9,000 it would not be enough. At any rate, the unit will contain nine people. On the question of specific expertise to which Senator Powell referred in relation to trade unions and business personnel, I made the point earlier that there are broad management functions in the proposed Board. For both historical and real reasons it is appropriate to have business and trade union representation. Senator Powell —Oh! Senator BUTTON —Yes, that is right, because they are dealing with broad management issues which involve a whole range of questions, not just equal employment opportunity. There is an equal employment opportunity unit of nine people, and departments will be asked to exercise and will continue to exercise the same role as they have in the past and to maintain their efforts in respect of equal employment opportunity. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.47) —I thank the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) for his response. I am sure that no one will be calling for a unit of 9,000 people, but if it were possible to double the figure of nine I think they might be able to handle the task. I must respond to the point about historical reasons, which touches a raw nerve. Of course there are historical reasons for the two prime ministerial appointees on the Australian Public Service Management Advisory Board coming from the trade unions and from the private sector. There are also historical reasons why only one in 10 parliamentarians is a woman, why women still do not earn the same amount as men do. Unfortunately, historical reasons will also apply when I call for a division on this amendment. Unfortunately, I know that the women in this Parliament will, again for historical reasons, follow the line of their party, possibly against the interests of other women and other disadvantaged groups in the community. I believe that this is one of the major problems that we have in advancing beyond historical reasons on such issues as this. It is a challenge to those of us who have concerns that history should change its pathway, indeed that politics should change. There are those in the community at the moment who are looking at new ways of politics. I refer in particular to a recent publication called Green Politics in which several contributors address this issue. Although the Democrats will be calling for a division on this amendment, I would ask that people, from whichever side of the chamber they come, who have a genuine concern about equal employment opportunity, about anti-discrimination moves of all kinds, seriously consider how they vote. They should consider the impact of all the women in this Parliament making a decision on the basis of the issue rather than for the historical reasons to which the Minister referred in his most recent remarks. Amendments negatived. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendment; report adopted. Bills (on motion by Senator Button) read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 September, on motion by Senator Button: That, in pursuance of section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, the Senators chosen for each State be divided into two classes as follows: (1) The name of the Senator first elected shall be placed first on the Senators' Roll for each State and the name of the Senator next elected shall be placed next, and so on in rotation. (2) The Senators whose names are placed first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth on the Roll shall be Senators of the second class, that is, the long-term Senators, and the Senators whose names are placed seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth on the Roll shall be Senators of the first class, that is, the short-term Senators. upon which Senator Short had moved by way of amendment: Leave out paragraph (2), insert the following paragraph: ``(2) The six Senators for each State whose order of election was determined in a re-count of ballot papers pursuant to section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and certified by the Australian Electoral Officer for that State shall be Senators of the second class, that is, the long-term Senators, and the remaining six Senators for that State shall be Senators of the first class, that is, the short-term Senators.''. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(3.52) —When the debate was adjourned yesterday I was making the point that the Government's motion on this occasion to continue the previous system of determining which senators are to be long term and which are to be short term following a double dissolution election, despite the 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, was cynical and unprincipled. This obviously represents a shabby deal done with the Australian Democrats which has the effect of giving the Democrats three long term senators compared with one under the system provided by the 1983 amendments to the Act. I was also pointing out that the Democrats' agreement to this shabby deal illustrates the extent to which they have sold their souls to blatant political opportunism over the years. I referred to the statement in this chamber on 4 June this year by former Senator David Vigor, explaining his reasons for resigning from the Australian Democrats. He said that the initial honesty, openness, tolerance, fair dealing and compassion of the Democrats had been thrown out the window in recent years. Senator Robert Ray, who I assume will speak later in this debate, will no doubt try to tell the Senate that the reason why the Government is so outrageously compromising its integrity in this matter is that the Senate had not agreed to use the new system of determination of the length of term of senators prior to the last election and that to adopt it now, knowing its impact, would somehow be wrong. I put it to the Government that such an assertion would be arrant nonsense. I repeat what I said several times yesterday-that the Senate had agreed to the new system by the very act of incorporating the proposal in the 1983 amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Indeed, in the debate on those amendments on 2 December 1983 Senator Ray made an important contribution and when this amendment was being considered, amongst other things he said: What this is intended to do is provide a guide for this chamber, if it wishes to use it, to determine who are short term senators and who are long term senators. I would think it is a guide which, if we set it up in advance and we could all agree to it in advance, we should use. Later in the debate he said: But if we can agree, at least in an ethical way, that it is a fairer system to have half Senate quotas applied to a double dissolution vote to determine who is short term and who is long term then we will get to a situation where that pattern continues and this Senate does not have to use political interference. They were the words of Senator Ray in December 1983. After he had spoken in the debate the Senate agreed to the amendment to which he was speaking. In my view this makes it quite clear that the Senate did agree to adopt this system. This is the first time since the 1983 amendments that they have been put to the test because this is the first double dissolution election since then. It will be laughable, indeed ludicrous, and certainly a disgrace if the Senate does not, of now, adopt the new system. If it does not then the question must surely be asked as to why this amendment was made to the Act in 1983 at all. There were good and valid reasons which were explained eloquently by the now responsible Minister, Senator Ray, during the debate. Indeed, Senator Ray had the task of shepherding the various amendments through the Senate on that occasion. I will quickly refresh the minds of honourable senators as to the main reasons for the change in 1983. The reasons were four-fold. Firstly, it would remove the incentive for the government of the day-of whatever political persuasion-to do political deals with minority parties in the Senate, deals which may well not be in the best interests of the nation. Secondly, it would be more equitable. Under the old system it is possible for a minority party to have a long term senator with only 7.8 per cent of the vote whereas a major party with as much as 45 per cent of the vote may finish up with only two long term senators despite the fact that the third person on the major party's list almost had a full residual quota. The third reason for support of the amendment at the time was that it would prevent any party which might have an absolute majority in the Senate from determining all its senators to be long term senators and all Opposition senators to be short term senators. Fourthly, the change made in 1983 would totally eliminate political interference in this part of the electoral process. Those were the points that the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform had in mind when it proposed the change in the first place. They were also the points that Senator Ray and others articulated so well in December 1983 when the proposal was debated in the Senate and incorporated without dissent, other than what I will describe as perhaps a technical dissent on the part of Senator Harradine. It cannot be logically argued that the Senate has not agreed to the new system. It agreed to it in December 1983 when it accepted the amendment to this effect introduced by the Hawke Government to the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The Governor-General's Speech at the opening of Parliament earlier this week mentioned the desirability of fewer elections. This cynical, shabby motion that we have before us now from the Government will work in total contradiction to the words of the Governor-General's Speech. This motion is a sleazy act of cynical and rank hypocrisy on the part of the Government. The Democrats have indicated that they will be supporting the Government's motion. I urge them to reconsider because support for this motion would demonstrate that the Democrats have lost all semblance of political or ethical principle. The Government's refusal to recommend to the Senate on this occasion the adoption of the system of rotation of senators agreed to in 1983 makes a mockery of the Government's proposed acceptance of the concept inherent in section 282 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act-the section inserted on the initiative of the present Government and accepted by the other parties. If the Senate does not adopt the method of rotation proposed in section 282 then it is fair to ask why the section is there at all. We know why it is there; I have already outlined the reasons. It is incumbent on the Senate to act logically and responsibly. The Government's motion is illogical, irresponsible and shabby. The Leader of the Government, Senator Button, obviously knows this; that is why he did not debate the matter when he moved the motion yesterday. The motion represents a deal with the Australian Democrats which this chamber must not allow idly to pass. The Liberal and National parties therefore oppose the motion and urge the Senate to pursue the approach recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and accepted by this chamber in 1983. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.01) —The Government's motion with regard to the long and short term senators as proposed by Senator Button will receive the support of the Australian Democrats. The previous speaker, Senator Short, has come lately to this particular area. He gave us a potted history of the method by which long and short term senators have been chosen. I think it is useful for people to know what the actual situation is. The Constitution is silent as to the method by which the Senate will determine long and short term senators. The Senate has been given the constitutional power to choose long and short term senators by any means it so desires. During the election campaign a number of Opposition members raised this particular point and indeed thought that the amendments to the electoral law somehow or other overrode the Constitution. The fact is that they do not override the Constitution. The situation is-- Senator Short —No one suggested they do. Senator MACKLIN —I am sorry, Senator Short; they certainly did suggest it. I can tell the honourable senator the names of the Opposition members who suggested it, if he likes. The situation is that the proposal with regard to a recount was first mooted by me in the first Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. During that particular operation, because we had so much on our plate-indeed we had the total revision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, something that the Liberal and National parties in all their time in office never got around to doing-many of the items were dropped out and could be considered only by the second Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. The method that was then proposed on the voice of the Chairman of the Committee at the time, Senator Robert Ray, was finally inserted into our second report and was accepted by the Senate. However, it is interesting to note that the method of simply taking the order in which people have been elected has been around for quite some time. It was suggested at that time that, if a change were to take place, it was fair and reasonable to say that that change would take place prior to an election in which one would use that particular method. That seemed to us and to the Committee a reasonable operation. It so happened, of course, that before the last election no such change was mooted. Quite simply, the reason that proposal is in the Electoral Act is to provide guidance to the Senate in determining long and short term senators. There is no mystique about that. Whether the Senate now or in the future decides to use that is entirely up to the Senate. It is a very useful piece of information, particularly when one looks at a number of the States to determine how the numbers fall out. It is particularly interesting, for example, to look at Victoria. The person who ended up at number 11 was a National Party senator, Senator McGauran, who ended up as number six on the countback under section 282. It was an interesting exercise and I might have ended up in a similar situation if I had got a few more of former Senator Georges's votes. It is a very useful exercise and I would certainly defend the insertion of section 282 in the Electoral Act. It is very useful data for the Senate to have when making its determination on long and short term senators. However, the Opposition spokesman, Senator Short, went even further. He decided to do a little hatchet job on the Australian Democrats, saying that deals had been done, et cetera. He did not actually go on to say where and when the deals had been made or what anyone was to have got out of them. I dare say that he will not be mentioning this outside the chamber, for obvious reasons to do with the law. If the Government were to enter into some deals I would have thought it ought to repay the favours that it got from the Opposition when it passed most of the Government's legislation in the last Budget, against the votes of the Democrats. Let us go through a few of those items railed against by the Opposition in the House of Representatives and then passed by it in the Senate. The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1986, which was to do with wine, is an example. Hansard shows Mr Carlton in the other place as having said that this was a `further blow to citrus growers and processors'. On and on he went. He said further, `We deplore the Bill's effect on the industries that will suffer under its provisions'. Then the Opposition voted for the Bill. The Australian Multicultural Affairs Bill 1986 is another example. Mr Cadman said: We believe that the Government could not have handled this matter in a more insensitive manner . . . We in the Opposition do not agree . . . Then the Opposition in the Senate voted for it. The Income Tax Rates Bill 1986 and cognate Bills were criticised by the Opposition in the House of Representatives but voted for by the Opposition here. The Australian Land Transport Amendment Bill 1986 is another example. Mr Tuckey said, `This measure is not a sensible solution'. However, the Opposition voted for it. The Social Security and Veterans' Affairs (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was condemned by the Opposition but voted for by it. The Opposition condemned the reintroduction of tertiary fees in the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and cognate Bills and then it voted for them. The Opposition said that the reason for the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1986 and cognate Bills was simply to raise more money from the overburdened taxpayer, then it voted for the legislation. If the Government really were in the business of making deals with the Opposition parties it really ought to see where its true interest lies and do a few deals with the Opposition, which has been much more supportive of Government legislation than have the Australian Democrats. Senator Richardson —Our future lies in principles, not in deals. Senator Short —How do you spell that? Senator MACKLIN —I think Senator Short spells it `principals'. The situation is very clear. With regard to the operation of legislation in this place, we have looked at each piece of legislation and determined our attitude to it on its merits. I suggest that if honourable senators think through the issue they will see why we came to that decision very early on when we gained the balance of power after the 1980 election. We have held the balance of power since 1 July 1981. The reason was an obviously political one, which was that not to do that would simply have embroiled us in threatening the government of the day, the then Fraser Government, with the non-passage of all of its legislation unless we got particular items in our policies up and running. We determined very early on that that just was not on. It was not in the interests of the country that that occur and it has not occurred since then. In fact, it has never occurred. It is very easy to throw around the types of accusations that Senator Short threw around yesterday and again today; it is much more difficult to disprove them. They are a little like the abominable snowman. They are not accessible to disproof because one can simply go on and raise another conspiratorial instance of where one believes some particular deal or another has occurred. To return to the substance of what is going on and put it into perspective, when one looks at the old method and does one's sums on who will get what, one sees that under the old method the Australian Labor Party would get 17 long term senators and under the new method it would get 17. Under the old method the Liberal Party of Australia would get 15 long term senators and under the new method it would get 15. Under the old method the National Party of Australia would get one and under the new method it would get three. Under the old method the Democrats would get three and under the new method, one. Therefore, the debate basically is not between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party-I see Senator Brownhill is entering the chamber-it is obviously about whether the National Party will end up with one or the Democrats will end up with one. Essentially that is the point of the exercise. Senator Brownhill —What sort of a deal are you doing with the Labor Party? Senator MACKLIN —If Senator Brownhill had turned up the speaker in his room he would have heard that point mentioned before. Obviously, he was not interested in the debate. He has just wandered into the chamber and found it on so he has now decided to interject. For Senator Brownhill's enlightenment and edification of the points I have been making, I refer him to the Hansard. Clearly the question is whether the parties in this place will be supporting the old or the proposed new method. Before we even knew the determination of the Cabinet with regard to which method the Government would be proposing to the Senate I said to many members of the Press: `A reasonable bet on working out which methods the various political parties will be supporting is to address the matter in terms of the parties' self-interest and find out which system they would get more under'. I maintained that in the Senate debate they will be marshalling their principles to support their self-interests. Of course, the best position on which one can stand is when one's principles coincide with one's self-interest. Fairly clearly, the situation is that under the proposed new change to the electoral Act, the Labor Party would go into the next election, which is, of course, what we are really interested in, with 17 long term senators and the Opposition parties would go in with 18. I am glad that Senator Brownhill came into the chamber because I point out that the problem that would arise after the next election, if there is a half Senate election, would be directly caused by the National Party voting with the Labor Party. Quite frankly, I have absolutely no compunction about where our vote will go because it was the National Party which increased the size of the House of Representatives and the Senate and caused the type of problem that will raise its head after the next election. If there is a series of elections without double dissolutions, it is likely that this place will end up with a tied number, which would make the entire parliamentary system unworkable. Senator Schacht —Why? Senator MACKLIN —It would make it unworkable because the Leader of the Opposition in the other place would control the Parliament. In this place, if a party gets half the number of votes it can defeat any Bill. That is part of the constitutional compact. A party needs half the number of senators plus one to get a Bill passed. Senator Richardson —You would get some seats in a half-Senate election. Senator MACKLIN —That may very well be the case. I am simply saying that if in a half-Senate election the electorate divided in such a way as to provide the Labor Party with three senators and the Opposition parties with three senators, we would be moving closer to each party having half the numbers. For a party to get four senators it has to get roughly 58 per cent of the vote. Senator Richardson —We are working on it. Senator MACKLIN —Undoubtedly Senator Richardson was working on it for the last election but he did not get anywhere near that figure and neither did the Opposition parties. However, for a party to get three senators it needs roughly only 43 per cent, and the Labor and Opposition parties got close to that figure in every State. This matter is nothing new. I forecast this exercise in terms of increasing the size of the Parliament in my response to the legislation when it first went through this place. There is a very real problem facing us with regard to that issue. It is not one that stemmed only from the increase in the size of the Parliament; it is one which stemmed from the increase in the size of the Parliament connected with the very odd constitutional problem that there is a nexus between this place and the other place. Despite the fact that all the political parties in this place support the breaking of the nexus, we have not been able to convince the electorate to do so. So every time we increase the size of the Parliament, we are going to increase it by two or four in every State-whatever the prevailing number happens to be; but it will be at least two-and we will be in the situation in which we are in today. The National Party cannot whinge too much. When it voted to increase the size of the Parliament it thought it would get a little political gain out of the exercise, but it did not. Let it take the knocks and the bouquets where they fall. And this happens to be one such occasion. It is not in the Labor Party's interest for the Liberal Party to have 18 long term senators going into the next election. I predicted that the Labor Party would make the decision it did. Quite frankly, it is not in the Democrats' interest to go into the next election with one long term senator when we can support a motion which would give us three long term senators. That would be an absurdity that I am quite sure even Senator Short could not bring himself to support if it were his Party, although he has supported some pretty absurd things in the past. I think that measure would overwhelm him and he would argue quite vigorously for the retention of the old system if it happened to advantage his Party. Unfortunately, he was not man enough to stand up and say that, but I am. Undoubtedly, having three long term senators will advantage the Democrats and that is one of the major reasons why we are supporting the proposal. I am quite happy to say that because everybody knows it. To be mealy-mouthed the way Senator Short was, or the way Senator Brownhill will be a little later, does not do them justice. Why do they not stand up and say what they believe, and that is that they want three long term senators rather than one. That is fairly obvious. Undoubtedly Senator Brownhill has his principles where his self-interests are and will argue that way a little later. Now that Senator Brownhill has wandered into the chamber for want of anything better to do-doubtless he has read his Bulletin and newspapers today-I would like to read a letter from one of his colleagues in the other place which shows the type of hypocrisy the National Party goes in for. The letter was written by the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) on 9 October 1986. Honourable senators who are still interested in this area will remember that we had a very interesting debate in this place on the service retirement pay and superannuation Bill, and the war service Bill-the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment Bill. The Government, as a result of decisions made in the last Budget, was going to have a one-off reduction in war service payments. The letter was written on 9 October, and that date is important. In answer to a constituent's letter the honourable member for Lyne stated: Whilst I know that the Coalition Senators will do all they can to block the proposed amendments I cannot speak for the Australian Democrats and would point out that they have let the Coalition down badly over past issues when they voted with the Government. That is interesting. Senator Haines, having received a letter from a constituent asking why the Australian Democrats did this, wrote to Mr Sinclair pointing out the facts. She sent a copy of the letter and quoted the part I have just quoted. She said: You will also note that the letter is dated 9th October, 1986. In fact, the Opposition parties voted with the Government to pass the Superannuation Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill, with the Australian Democrat Senators and Senator Harradine voting against it. Just as importantly, you will see from the Hansard extract attached that the vote was taken on the 25th September-two weeks before Mr Cowan wrote his misleading letter. That is an interesting exercise that the National Party went in for, and one which I think got pretty close to a breach of privilege; it certainly misrepresented the vote of the Senate which took place two weeks before the honourable member wrote to his constituent. That is the type of hypocrisy that the National Party goes in for and Mr Sinclair was not even gracious enough to accept that that was a serious breach on the part of a member of the National Party. Likewise Mr Howard did not even bother to respond to a letter which was written to him. That is the type of exercise in hypocrisy that the National Party goes on with. Senator Richardson —Mr Sinclair is not known to be gracious. Senator MACKLIN —No, and he was not known to be gracious on this occasion. When it comes to the types of accusations that Senator Short tossed around, and doubtless Senator Brownhill will toss around, in terms of deals, they should look at the types of activities in which they have engaged. I am not quite sure what the National Party got out of the exercise of increasing the size of media monopolies in this country, or increasing the size of Parliament-presumably something. The two occasions on which National Party members exercised their votes and held the balance of power in this chamber were sorry exercises in using their votes to pass two pieces of legislation which the country did not need or want. At least three times Senator Brownhill referred to the notion of the major parties. I have already tried to delineate the fact that the major parties, that is, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, ended up with identical numbers. The National Party and the Australian Democrats were the parties whose numbers were changed. The Democrats received a larger national vote than the National Party. There seems to be a certain amount of justice in the fact that we should receive more long term senators as a result. Debate (on motion by Senator Richardson) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Beahan, I remind honourable senators that this will be a maiden speech and I ask that the honourable senator be extended the usual courtesies. Senator BEAHAN(Western Australia)(4.22) —I move: That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed to: To His Excellency, the Governor-General, May it please Your Excellency-We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our most gracious sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. I am deeply honoured to have been asked to move this motion in reply to His Excellency's Speech. I am also pleased, Mr President, to be one of the first to congratulate you on your re-election. It also pleases me to congratulate all those who have been elected or re-elected to this Senate and, in particular, to welcome the record number of newly-elected senators who join me for the first time in this chamber. It is interesting to note that the election of 17 new senators represents a record for contemporary elections. This is a demonstration of the greater volatility of the Senate in recent times and a reflection of the more common occurrence of double dissolutions. In the 87-year history of the Parliament there have been only six double dissolutions-in 1914, in 1951, in 1974, in 1983, and in 1987. Their more frequent incidence in recent years seems to indicate a pattern for the future with its corollary that perhaps none of us can be assured of the traditionally long career in the Senate. His Excellency the Governor-General, in his Speech at the opening of this, the Thirty-fifth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, indicated that the Government would pursue in its third term a range of proposals designed, on the one hand, to build a stronger, more competitive and more efficient economy and, on the other, a fairer and more compassionate Australian society. This encapsulates the Government's broad strategic approach. It is an approach which, particularly in current economic circumstances, demands of the Government a high degree of self-discipline, the need for rigorous analysis of policy options and great courage in the implementation of decisions, once made. I believe that the Government has demonstrated such discipline and courage in its first two terms of office. I am proud to have been associated with this period of political history and look forward to the achievement of some of the goals established by the Government in the long and difficult process of national reconstruction. The approach of the Government throughout its first two terms of office has been understood and accepted by the majority of Australians. This is reflected in the return of the Government with an increased majority in the House of Representatives. There is no doubt, however, that the Government's approach is sadly misunderstood by many. It is apparent from a cursory analysis of the election results that Labor, whilst gaining seats, lost support from some sectors of its traditional base. I freely admit this. I know from my experience as State Secretary of the Western Australian Branch of the Labor Party since 1981 that some Party supporters, disillusioned with their perception of the Government's performance, grudgingly cast Labor votes because the emergence of the so-called New Right signalled the need to close ranks. Nor has this problem of perceptions been made any easier by certain members of the media who, influenced more by popular cliches than by scrutiny of the facts, refer to the Government as having sold out on Labor principles or of there being little difference between Labor and its conservative opposition. Such accusations are easy to make but are not borne out by any objective assessment of the facts. It is of course important for the Government to spend adequate time explaining its goals and objectives, its broad strategy and the component parts of this strategy. If there has been a fault of the Government it has been that, busily involved in the gruelling processes of policy formulation and administration, it has failed to give a high priority to the equally important process of explaining what it is doing and why and how it is doing it. There is a responsibility on governments to take both supporters and the larger community into their confidence. This Government must address this problem or suffer a loss in support and, more importantly, the gradual but inexorable decay of its traditional base. Having said this, I return to my point that the Hawke Government has approached the business of government in a refreshingly thorough, rigorous and disciplined way, that it has shown the courage to take the required tough decisions and that, despite adverse economic conditions, it has achieved a great deal both in terms of reconstructing and revitalising the economy and in terms of the gradual achievement of a more just and equitable society. Few governments, even in better economic times, could lay claims to social achievements such as the introduction of Medicare, providing medical security for all Australians, including the two million not previously covered in any way; an 8.1 per cent increase in pensions compared to a 2.5 per cent increase during Fraser's years so that pensions are now 24.4 per cent of average weekly earnings with guaranteed indexed increases to keep pace with inflation; vast improvements in rent assistance to the poor, particularly those with children; the easing of poverty traps for social security beneficiaries and the introduction of the family package, directing tangible benefits to those in greatest need; a 42 per cent increase in public housing together with assistance to over 200,000 people through the first home owners scheme; a massive redistribution of income from the wealthy to the poor-demonstrated in the latest Budget-by means of a thorough restructuring of the taxation system and the redistribution of revenues through the social security system; the progressive provision of superannuation for the whole work force; the sensitive handling of industrial relations through the accord and support for improvements in wages and other conditions in an orderly and fair system and in consultation with unions; a substantial rise-from 36 per cent in 1983 to nearly 50 per cent in 1987-in the number of children completing full secondary education with a commitment to raise the retention rate to 65 per cent by the first half of the next decade; a 12 per cent employment growth in four years, averaging 3 per cent per year-double the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average; the doubling of child care places; a wide range of initiatives for women, including creative and now widely accepted initiatives in the areas of equal opportunity, discrimination and affirmative action; and a record in conservation and environment equalled by no other government in Australian history. Apart from recent decisions to seek a World Heritage listing for the wet tropics of north-east Queensland and the commitment to protect the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests in Tasmania, the Government has also shown its commitment to the environment by acting to protect the nation's natural wonders at the Franklin River, the Great Barrier Reef, Shelbourne Bay, Kakadu, Uluru, and the scenic beauty of the Denmark area in Western Australia. All of this, and much more, has been achieved in a period of severe economic restraint caused by the collapse in Australia's terms of trade, affecting our international competitiveness. Apart from these social initiatives-although each of them has economic implications-the Government has shown the same thoroughness, the same application, to other key areas of concern to traditional supporters. Areas worthy of greater dissemination and a source of considerable pride to those of us close to the political process are the Government's initiatives in restructuring various industries and the handling of the economy. There are many other real achievements. While I do not intend to list these, I will draw attention to one-the Government's approach to the question of peace and disarmament. Of all the areas in which Labor has-and I admit this again-lost its traditional base vote, the peace and disarmament area is the most significant. The presence of two nuclear disarmament independents in this chamber is testimony to this. Yet again I believe that if our supporters were fully aware of the Government's record they would be both surprised and impressed. I believe that the Government's handling of this important question has been appropriate and sensible. The planned movement, as expressed in the defence White Paper, towards greater defence self-reliance, based on an acceptance that Australia faces no immediate threat, the emphasis on greater involvement for Australian industry in defence procurement, the active engagement of the Government in a catalytic role at international disarmament fora, the redefinition and strengthening of Australia's role in joint defence facilities are all precursors to any more fundamental repositioning of Australia in world affairs. In the complex and sensitive area of international relations, change must inevitably be painstakingly slow. It would be irresponsible indeed to upset the delicate balance which currently exists between the super-powers. Change must also, for reasons I will explain shortly, gain the support of the community at large. There exists in the Australian community an historically-based insecurity which cannot be ignored. In this context, unilateralist positions, or those that pose under a different name whilst expressing the same views, are no more sensible or appropriate than those which uncritically accept existing defence arrangements and alliances as static and unchanging, or those which see the defence of Australia as some sort of continuous ideological holy war. In this regard I object most strongly to those activists within the peace movement who believe that they have a monopoly on principle and morality; those who spurn anyone who cannot in all sincerity accept uncritically and totally a cluster of beliefs some of which, I feel, bear only tenuously on questions of peace and disarmament. Each of us has his or her own way of working towards personal goals. You do not have to bleed to show that you have a heart: you do not have to pray to demonstrate the presence of a soul. I have been actively involved in the peace movement since the early 1960s. My commitment is no less strong now than it was then. The way I choose to express my commitment is no less legitimate than those who choose to wear their commitment on their sleeves. Setting aside this brief digression, Mr President, I think I have demonstrated what I believe to be a commendable record of achievement by this Government. There are, I believe, a number of reasons why these are not fully understood by our traditional supporters. Apart from the already mentioned fact that governments must spend more time explaining what they are doing, it should be understood that there are, in any pluralist society, a number of constraints on any government involved in the process of change. The first such constraint is, of course, the state of the economy. The massive collapse in Australia's terms of trade, for example, has been a major constraint on the introduction of new programs or on the extension of existing programs. A second constraint, frequently overlooked, is that governments of whatever political persuasion must seek and gain a reasonable level of community support for planned changes. It is an axiom of politics that no government legislates in a vacuum. Any government which acts as if it is somehow removed from the community it serves will quickly suffer the electoral consequences of such insularity. It follows that governments must attempt to create a climate of acceptability for their ideas. The educative role is equally important as the legislative role. A third constraint is the fact that this is a mixed economy in which government actions have a direct bearing on the private sector. As the major employer and engine of economic activity, governments must win the confidence of the private sector. Only by healthy activity here can revenue be generated to fund programs of reform. There is now added complexity in the increasing interdependence of the world economy. It is no longer possible to make decisions in an exclusively Australian context. The impact of such decisions on the rest of the world is now an important part of the equation. And this is not because of deregulation and the opening up of the Australian economy. This new interdependent world pre-dated the decision to deregulate. Prior to that decision we were simply hiding from reality. Given these and other constraints, governments, if they wish to survive long enough to be effective, must tread warily. The pace of change is thus slow. Party members and supporters with high expectations are understandably critical of the rate of social and political change and frequently intolerant of the constraints limiting the speed of a reform government's actions. Often this critical focus obscures appreciation of the substantial gains being made, the social changes being wrought. But this does not reflect any selling out of principle, nor does it imply a loss of philosophical direction. Those who fall into the trap of accepting this line of argument are, I believe, confusing means and ends. Labor's socialist objective is concerned with the achievement of a society in which each individual has a right to enjoy a life with dignity, security and equality. This is the end. This is the absolute at which we aim. The means of achieving this end, the processes leading to this product are not absolutes. They are and should be the subject of constant discussion and debate. The success of Labor governments, both nationally and in the States, is a product of a more hard-headed approach to this question of means and ends; of finding innovative ways of achieving agreed objectives. Nowhere is this more evident than in Western Australia where only last week the Government, through judicious management and entrepreneurial flair and despite current economic difficulties, brought down a surplus Budget. Despite a fall in Commonwealth payments to the States of about 11 per cent since 1983-84, the Government has achieved a degree of expenditure control highlighted by the fact that Government expenditure as a proportion of gross State product, which is a measure of total activity in the State, has declined by more than 13 per cent since 1983-84. It has achieved the surplus Budget in part by creative initiatives designed to generate alternative sources of revenue at the same time as stimulating economic activity. Two key examples are the Western Australian Development Corporation and Western Australian Exim Corporation. Established as profit-based commercial trading enterprises they have successfully helped in generating additional Government revenues; enhancing the Government's role as an industry co-ordinator and analyst in economic development; increasing local ownership in industry; assisting local firms in marshalling the financial resources necessary for large scale development projects; further developing the State's financial sector; and expanding the market for State products by promoting exports. The success of these ventures, together with prudent yet imaginative management, has resulted in Western Australia out-performing most other States with reference to the standard economic indicators. For example, Western Australia experienced employment growth of 2.7 per cent in the 12 months to July 1987-higher than all States other than Victoria; the highest level of actual new fixed capital expenditure per capita in the 12 months to May 1987; the highest total value of new dwelling approvals per capita in the 12 months to April 1987, indicating strong building activity; and the highest increase in the value of retail sales between April 1986 and April 1987. The obvious good standing of the State was made possible by the Western Australian Government's creativity in finding new ways of reaching old goals. These new ways were not found in order to forsake fundamental Labor principles but as the only way, given the current economic and political climate, of achieving such goals. I hope you will forgive the parochialism in these comments, Mr President, but forms and precedents dictate that I direct some of my comments to my home State. It is also, of course, the State which elected me and the State which I am both attached to and fondly proud of. I wish to conclude on a more personal note. I want to thank all of those people who have made my transition into this new role so much easier. I refer in particular to you, Mr President, and to the staff of the Senate and the Joint House staff who have been uniformly pleasant and helpful. I am impressed by the creative flexibility of this group and by their willingness to service without complaint the smallest of needs. I also want to thank the many people who have assisted and supported me throughout my career firstly in union then in party politics, and who have assisted me in entering the Senate. In particular I thank my family, immediate and extended, for the support they have given me. Few people outside of politics realise the stresses placed on the family by a political career. Apart from the frequent absences and intrusions into family time, family members are often faced with discrimination and disruption to both their professional and personal lives. I thank in particular my wife Jenny for her support and counsel, despite the fact that she has suffered personally. I also thank my children, Daniel and Kate, for their understanding and acceptance of the many compromises that have to be made when juxtaposing family life and a political career. I trust that, with time, all of us involved in the daily cut and thrust of politics will adopt and practice a set of principles which respects the privacy and dignity of family life and regards personal attacks on family members, without the strongest foundations, as improper and unacceptable. I look forward to a rewarding life in the Senate, a life that will be busy, arduous and sometimes stressful, but never lacking in interest and variety. The PRESIDENT —Before calling on Senator Collins to second the Address-in-Reply, I remind honourable senators that this will be his initial speech in this chamber and I ask that the honourable senator also be extended the usual courtesies. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(4.43) —Mr President, I have much pleasure in seconding the motion and I add my congratulations to you on your re-election as President of the Senate. My first speech in this chamber is going to be very parish pump, for which I offer absolutely no apologies whatever. I come to this place as only the second Labor senator from the Northern Territory, after 12 years of very distinguished service by my predecessor, Ted Robertson. Despite Ted Robertson's numerical problems he was at least marginally more fortunate than the Territory's first representative in the House of Representatives, Harold Nelson. Ted Robertson at least had a vote; Harold Nelson did not. Despite Harold Nelson's eunuch-rather than unique-status in the House of Representatives, he did not let that stop him. He became a very forceful advocate for the needs of the Northern Territory. In his maiden speech, delivered in 1923, he talked about the need for a north-south railway-I am glad Peter Walsh has gone-constitutional development for the Northern Territory, an increase in mining activity and the development of Asian markets for the Territory. At first glance it would seem that the Territory's agenda has not changed all that much over the last 60 years. In fact, there could be few places in Australia where the social, political and economic landscape has changed as dramatically as it has in my home-dare I say it-State of the Northern Territory. When I first arrived in the Northern Territory just 20 years ago the city of Darwin was a place straight out of a Somerset Maugham novel-10,000 people of the most diverse ethnic mix imaginable living in tropical isolation. Fifty miles north were the very beautiful Bathurst and Melville Islands, the home of the Tiwi people of whom my wife Rosemary is one. I remember some years ago when I was learning to speak Tiwi my wife explained to me that the word `Tiwi' itself means `the chosen people'. The reason for that is that the Tiwi felt for thousands of years that they were the only people on earth. They were well aware of the existence of the mainland, of course, only 50 miles away, but believed it was pukamami, forbidden, because it was inhabited by the souls of the dead. When I first arrived in Darwin 20 years ago there was considerable evidence for believing that was true. Eighty per cent of the work force were public servants, as indeed I was myself. The only sealed road was the Stuart Highway. It was not much of a road at that. As a result, in the wet season one did not do much because one could not, and in the dry season one did not do a lot because the wet season was coming. The Territory has changed a great deal since those times but I fear that the perceptions of the Territory, particularly in southern places, have not. The misconceptions and mistrust which particularly bedevil Territory-Canberra relationships still need to be broken down. Canberra, regardless of which government is in power, is seen in the north as a place dedicated solely to strangling the Northern Territory at birth. Canberra is certainly seen that way. The Northern Territory is seen in many quarters in Canberra-some quarters more than others, I must say-as a bottomless pit for Federal money with no return on the investment. In the 1980s that view can be easily disproved. Last year the Northern Territory's mining industry turned over $1 billion in production. Its percentage of the Territory's gross domestic product was the highest of any State or Territory. Substantial progress has also been made in the trade drive into Asia. Last year the value of exports from the Northern Territory to Asia doubled the amount of imports from the same region. That is a performance that has yet to be echoed on a national level. The growth of this Northern Territory will continue and I say with some feeling that it is in both the economic and strategic national interests of this country that the Commonwealth continues to stimulate and encourage that growth. To its credit, this Government has shown that it is prepared to do exactly that. The gold industry is a case in point. Gold production in the Territory doubled in 1986 and is set to double again this year. This is due in no small part to the Government's decision not to impose a gold tax. I had my heart in my mouth last night, for no good reason. Many marginal prospects in the Northern Territory would have remained idle if such a tax had been imposed. One of the most promising new prospects in an advanced stage of proving up is the very substantial Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd deposit at Coronation Hill. I was encouraged to hear the Governor- General outline the Government's defence agenda for the next three years. The strategic vulnerability of northern Australia provided the greatest incentive at that time for the federation of the States. Little of significance has been done until now to bolster northern defences except to talk about it. This Government has made the most significant commitment to Northern Territory defence in memory, a fact grudgingly conceded by even its most trenchant critics in northern Australia. That development is dramatically underpinning the Territory's economy at this time. The redevelopment of the Tindal Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base near Katherine is currently the largest development project in the Northern Territory. Over $200m has already been committed to that project and it will be worth $1 billion by the time it is completed. When finished it will be 11 times the size of the Amberley RAAF base in Queensland, currently the largest RAAF establishment in Australia. With the assistance of the recently established Northern Territory Industrial Supplies Office (ISO)-a wonderful incentive of mine, I must say-many local companies have been successful in gaining lucrative contracts from the project. However, the ISO believes that the process for letting future defence contracts can be even further improved to enhance the competitive nature of Northern Territory companies. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and I hope that the early involvement of the ISO in the tender process will result in a good flow of contracts to Northern Territory firms for the relocation of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in the Northern Territory and future work on the Jindalee over the horizon radar installation in central Australia. Tourism is booming in the Northern Territory. Final figures for the last year will show that nearly three-quarters of a million people visited the Northern Territory last year, despite the fact that one could fit our population into the Victorian Football League football grounds. As predicted, the federally funded sealing of the south road has brought a flood of tourist traffic into the Northern Territory which is causing some short term problems, placing a great strain on tourist infrastructure along the highway. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission chief, Mr George Dunne, says, and truly, that our wilderness and our wildlife are the keys to the Territory's tourist boom. Our two major tourist attractions are the Uluru and Kakadu national parks-world heritage country, steeped in Aboriginal history. I was very fortunate in being able to work for quite a number of years in Kakadu when I was employed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I am constantly dismayed, however, by public statements by senior Northern Territory Ministers that publicly advocate that all stages of the Kakadu National Park-indeed, the Minister for Mines and Energy has said this on many occasions-stages 1, 2 and 3, should be opened to mining. It is the view of people like that that the environmental and tourist aspects of the park should be subjugated to the interests of mining. Kakadu, apart from its spectacular landscape and water birds, is the greatest repository of Aboriginal rock art in the world. The park has 5,000 rock art galleries. Also, the flora and fauna of the Yellowwaters billabong is spectacular. I should point out that 80 per cent of the water birds in Australia are there despite, I might also add, a very healthy collection of those very large sets of teeth on legs, Kakadu's crocodiles. A very important person to the Northern Territory over the next three years is going to be the newly appointed Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Senator Graham Richardson. Indeed, I would think he could do himself a favour if he could manage to break one of those crocodiles in on a lead and take it with him on his trips. If he did so, he would not have to worry about any further demonstrations. Kakadu National Park is, and always was, a compromise. The agreements were signed for Kakadu the same day as the agreements were signed for the Ranger uranium mine. It was part of that deal. Like all compromises, its present and future users can never completely satisfy all of the competing interests in the park. It is fair to say, though, that until now the compromise between Aboriginal, environmental, tourism and mining interests has been as successful as one could possibly expect. I do not hesitate to say, however, that when it is necessary, as it is, to give more weight to any one of those competing interests, priority must rest with the environmental interests of the park. Kakadu is now outstripping Uluru as the major tourist attraction of the Northern Territory. Despite serious Budget restrictions, this Government has funded both parks to the tune of $10m in the last financial year-I noticed last night the very healthy investment that has been made this year-making Kakadu the most heavily funded national park by a country mile in Australia. There is one pressing need upon which I have already made representations to the Minister, namely, the establishment of a Kakadu Park board of management based on the same successful model as the board currently operating at Uluru and, indeed, the board operating at the Northern Territory Conservation Commission's Gurig National Park at Cobourg Peninsula. Most of the visitors to the Northern Territory, despite the sealing of the south road, still arrive by air. Darwin Airport handles as many aircraft movements a year as do both the Cairns Airport and the Perth Airport. However, it is an inadequate, ugly and inefficient front door to Australia. The replacement of that terminal will be a primary objective of mine in this coming term. I was very pleased to see in the Budget Papers presented last night that $4.5m has been allocated to upgrading Alice Springs Airport which, considering the extent of the traffic going out to Ayers Rock at the moment, is very welcome indeed. I wish to raise a number of general issues because of their impact on the Northern Territory. The campaign to oppose the Australia Card has generated considerable debate. Some of it has been ill-informed. Some of it, I do not hesitate to say, in my view has been over the top. In keeping with the spirit of this speech, I will not dwell on that campaign, except to say-and I must say it-that unprincipled opportunism rather than principled opposition has certainly marked at least some of the contributions to the debate. I am disappointed at statements from the Northern Territory, Queensland and Tasmanian governments that they intend not to co-operate with the Commonwealth request for a national computerised linkage of births, deaths and marriage registers. I would remind honourable senators that the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card advocated this measure as an essential reform in the fight against fraud and organised crime, particularly in the drug trade. Despite being split on the question of the card with a photograph, it was the Committee's first and unanimous recommendation that the computerised link be implemented whether the card was introduced or not. The only people who are going to benefit from the political opposition to this reform are those defrauding the Commonwealth. Quite clearly, it is in the national interest that those two issues be separated in the manner that the Joint Select Committee itself separated them. I welcome the reference by the Governor-General that a royal commission will be established to inquire into the disturbingly high number of Aboriginal deaths in custody. I was very pleased that a Northern Territory judge, Mr Justice Muirhead, will be the commissioner. I have known and respected Jim Muirhead for many years. He is an eminent jurist who achieved some public prominence as the judge who presided over the Chamberlain trial-a trial that, despite the controversy, he conducted impeccably. I have written to the relevant Minister expressing some views on the conduct of the commission and in particular that it should investigate, at least in a general sense, the number and circumstances surrounding non-Aboriginal deaths in custody. I have no doubt that this Parliament, and the people of Australia, will be anxious to receive the recommendations of that Commission. The Northern Territory was the scene of the most extraordinary case in the history of criminal justice in Australia. Two people, with a history of providing nothing but love and care for their children, were convicted, in the case of Lindy Chamberlain, of the cold-blooded murder of her own nine-week-old daughter, and in the case of Michael Chamberlain, of being an accessory to that murder. The Crown provided no witnesses to the murder, no weapon, no motive and no body. The Chamberlains were convicted largely on the basis of expert forensic evidence. We now know, as a result of the royal commission conducted by Mr Justice Morling, that much of that evidence was dreadfully wrong. The Morling Commission found that the `bloody handprint' on the baby's jumpsuit was marks made by red sand. The pool of baby's blood under the seat containing that magic ingredient, haemoglobin F, turned out to be not blood at all but, in the view of the commission, probably a spilled milkshake. The sprayed pattern of blood on the dashboard-that dramatic evidence; the baby's blood pumping from a cut throat-turned out to be sound deadener sprayed on the car by General Motors-Holden's Ltd when it was manufactured. Lindy Chamberlain spent 3 1/2 years in Berrimah Prison and the Chamberlain family have spent years in hell on the basis of that now totally discredited evidence. Many suggestions were made in the course of this matter to ensure that this could never happen again. Some of them, such as the selection of expert juries, horrified me. However, Mr Justice Morling recommended in his report, which was tabled in this House, what many forensic scientists have been calling for for years-the establishment of a national forensic laboratory to set uniform standards for forensic testing throughout Australia and to monitor the application of those standards. I will be pressing this Government for the implementation of that recommendation. Many statements have been made about the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. It is important, at least to me, to debunk some of the statements. A great many have said that 26 January 1988 will be our second centenary as a nation. Some very important people have said that. That is nonsense, of course. We are not even celebrating our first centenary as a nation. That will not occur until 1 January 2001. When the British prisoners and their gaolers arrived in Australia on 26 January 1788 only the eastern portion of Australia was claimed for King George III. It was not in fact until 1829 that the western portion of Australia was claimed by the British, and not until 1879 that the Torres Strait Islands were claimed. Prior to Federation in 1901 we were a collection of independent States and, indeed, if it had not been for the creation of this Senate, modelled on the United States Senate, we could well have remained so. Comparison with the American experience is instructive. I have been hard put to find an American who can remember the date of the arrival of the Mayflower, let along celebrate it. The most significant day of celebration for Americans is 4 July, the anniversary of the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence. The recent American Bicentennial was indeed the 200th anniversary of that day. Let us get straight what in fact we will be celebrating. The 26 January 1988 will be the 200th birthday of the city of Sydney, not the birth of the nation of Australia, and that city is entitled to it. Acknowledging that fact, one of the Bicentennial projects-and I have been a member of the council in the Territory since its inception-that I was truly enthusiastic about was the erection of a giant birthday cake in Kings Cross. I think possibly the reason I was so enthusiastic is that it was going to be built 3,000 kilometres away from where I live. But if any place deserves a birthday cake, Sydney does. I was very sorry to read in the Press that that big cake has hit the wall and it has been replaced by a far more tasteful and relevant monument to the Bicentennial-a giant anteater with 200 candles stuck on its back. With due respect to your home town, Mr President, I do not think that Melbourne's claim to be the cultural centre of Australia is under much threat. When we consider the state of the current debate-this is where I get very provocative-on whether we should remove the flag of a distant nation, albeit one that is as historically and culturally important to us as Britain, from our own national flag, it is arguable that we are in truth not a nation yet. I confess freely that I am one of those Australians, however few, who would dearly love to see the Southern Cross without the Union Jack run up our $10m flagpole next year. I am pleased that the Northern Territory, even before actually becoming a State, has been the first to produce a unique, striking and truly Australian flag-the first without the Union Jack-and featuring the Southern Cross and Sturt's desert rose in the Territory colours of black, white and ochre. Much has been said about the participation or otherwise of Aboriginal people in this Bicentenary. It has been stated, and fairly enough in my view, that a far more significant date for Aboriginals to commemorate would be 25 January 1788, the last day on which they enjoyed the undisturbed occupation of this colony. The year 1988 will, however, be a birthday of sorts for Aboriginals, a birthday which will highlight the extent of the injustice, dispossession and indeed dehumanisation of those people that have been inflicted upon them since 1788. The year of 1988 will be the twenty-first anniversary of the granting of citizenship to Aboriginal Australians, the attainment of their adult majority as Australians. Just 20 years ago, in 1967, we graciously allowed Aboriginal people to join us as citizens of a country that they had been part of for 200 bicentenaries. Critics of the protest of Aboriginals and others complain of, as they see it, the preoccupation of the protesters with past injustices. If injustice and maltreatment were things of the past, that criticism might have some validity. It is, however, that sad history which is responsible for the continuing injustices of 1987, and it is those injustices that concern me. The attention paid quite rightly to the deaths of Aboriginals in custody should not overshadow the much more serious problem of the number of premature deaths of Aboriginal people out of custody. Thousands of Aboriginal Australians living on cattle stations, in fringe camps and in urban slums right around Australia will enter 1988 still living in the same squalor and deprivation of their forebears since they were dispossessed of their land 200 years ago and dying from it. I hope that 1988 will produce a concentration of effort by Aboriginal organisations and by Federal, State and Territorial governments tangibly to improve the living conditions of these most neglected Australians. I agree with Charles Perkins: the Bicentenary should be a time when it can all hang out. Let the First Fleet re-enactment arrive if it can, if it does not run out of money or sink on the way. Let Aboriginal Australians use 1988 in any way they see fit. Whatever 1988 may or may not be, it is certainly the bicentenary of Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals living together in this country. In the past that was achieved by the lives and culture of the former being sacrificed out of hand for the convenience of the latter, a reality in much of Australia today. We all have our hopes for 1988. One of mine is that 1988 can be celebrated at least by an acceptance of that reality by all Australians, and some commitment that a future relationship can be based instead on true equality and mutual respect. The full constitutional development of the Northern Territory will create Australia's seventh State. It will bring to the Federation of States a unique community. There are over 60 nationalities represented in the Northern Territory, the largest being the Chinese and Greek communities, and of course one-quarter of our population being Aboriginal Territorians. Thousands of Aboriginal Territorians have been fortunate to have largely been able to retain their very special lifestyle, languages and religious practices. The magnificent Aboriginal art of the Northern Territory is drawn from a living, not a dead, culture. Apart from that, that industry provides the Northern Territory with export earnings of currently around $4m a year. But Territorians, in my view, cannot be sold out for a short term grab for statehood. Statehood should not occur at all without full Federal representation. There seems no reason to me to have it otherwise. I have consistently been of that view. In all of the time that I was a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly's Committee on Constitutional Development, and as a Northern Territory delegate to two constitutional conventions, I held the same view. Indeed, I was on common ground in this with the former Federal member for the Northern Territory and the Territory's former Chief Minister, Paul Everingham. The Senate was created deliberately on the basis that its membership would be totally divorced from the number of people in its constituent States. Federation would never have been achieved without that arrangement. It would be a sellout of future Territorians to create the precedent of a second-class State with second-class representation in the States' House, the Senate, even on a temporary basis. Temporary solutions in politics have a horrible habit of becoming permanent. Last week the Northern Territory Government proposed a campaign for statehood followed by, to my astonishment, a formal referendum next year. That referendum proposal is foolish and premature. Research by the Government itself last year indicated that 70 per cent of Territorians were either indifferent to or opposed to statehood. A `no' vote at a formal referendum held next year is not going to do too much to advance the cause of statehood for the Northern Territory. One of the other problems is that a number of people in public life, to my sorrow, are portraying statehood as being the quick fix for all of the perceived Aboriginal problems of the Northern Territory. Let me say this: a referendum which will produce a result polarised on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal lines is not going to help much to advance the cause of statehood for the Territory either. A far more sensible approach would be to initiate the campaign, certainly, and then to follow it with further research on the attitude of Territorians to the question. I will continue to work in this Parliament, as I did in the Northern Territory Parliament, for the achievement of statehood for the Territory, but only on the basis of it being on just terms for all Territorians. I am conscious of the traditions of the Senate. I am aware of its history and the crucial role that it played in the founding of Australia as a new nation. I acknowledge its role as a House of review, and I acknowledge the great contribution of its committees to our parliamentary system of government. During the coming term there will no doubt be many issues before this House and its committees of crucial importance to the interests of the Northern Territory. The needs of the Northern Territory are great, but so is its promise. I will endeavour, during this coming term, to work for the further realisation of that promise by serving both the Northern Territory and the Senate to the best of my ability. The PRESIDENT —Order!-Before I call Senator Stone, I remind honourable senators that this will also be a maiden speech and I ask that the honourable senator be extended the usual courtesies. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.06) —I would like to commence my remarks by congratulating Senator Beahan and Senator Collins on their maiden speeches, although I would have to say to you, Mr President, that I had the strong impression in the case of Senator Collins that that was no maiden-that was an experienced person. Before contemplating this occasion I referred of course-perhaps I should not say `of course' but I regard it as a matter of course-to what I suppose is the bible of honourable senators, that is, Odgers's Australian Senate Practice. I found there that not merely is it a tradition but it is a time-honoured custom, as Mr Odgers said, that a new senator making his initial speech is heard without interjections, which you, Mr President, have been kind enough to remind the Senate of. But the balance to that-as in all these things there is balance-is that a new senator should not strain the traditions by being unduly provocative. I have had some experience in drafting and I always like words such as `unduly', but I do assure you, Mr President, and indeed all honourable senators, that I do not propose to be provocative at all on this occasion. I did, however, have one qualm when I read that sentence, which I did only this morning, because it occurred to me-but I am sure this is not the case-that perhaps the injunction might also extend to the honourable senator's attire. Mr President, I hope you would not so rule as I would almost certainly have to remove my tie because, although I may say in that case that perhaps it could find a home in one part opposite, my tie is that of the H.R. Nicholls Society, of which I have the honour to be President. It is a most civilised body whose discussions were graced on one notable occasion, I should inform the Senate, by no less a person than the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). I would like therefore, however, to assure honourable senators that when I put on this tie this morning I had no intention of being provocative on this occasion. I suppose that there have been few more surprising translations to this place than mine. I look back upon the extraordinary-at least, extraordinary to me-events of the past few months. I believe I am correct in recalling that I was first approached to stand for the Senate for the State of Queensland on or about 4 June. I had never before that time been a member of any political party and, if I may confess a secret-a rather open secret-I had never before voted National. I have to add to that list of events, or non-events, the fact that also I never expected to return to Canberra in any formal capacity, and certainly not in this capacity. These things tend to excite some attention in various quarters, and I have noted that some others have reflected upon the wisdom of this course on my part. One or two have even raised the thought that perhaps someone like myself, coming to this place so late in one's career, indeed having terminated an earlier career, might not have what I think they were kind enough to call staying power, and that after a brief period here I might find myself unattracted by this place. I assure you, Mr President, that those people may put their minds at rest. Indeed, I recall that in 1971, when I was appointed Deputy Secretary (Economic) of the Commonwealth Treasury, just after Sir Frederick Wheeler had been appointed Secretary to the Treasury, my wife, who is a very wise woman, said to me, `Well, if you can last seven years under Fred, you will deserve to be Secretary to the Treasury'. I did indeed last those seven years, and I hope to last an equal number of years at least in this place. I would like also, because I think it is appropriate to do so on this occasion, to note another comment that has been made in one or two quarters by some who have purported to express amazement at what they have asserted to have been my alleged attitude to the Parliament in my previous capacity as a public servant. I would like to do so in order to lay to rest very firmly, and I trust finally, any myths of that kind. In doing so, I wish to express, on the contrary, the deep respect in which I have always held the Parliament. In this my first speech in this illustrious place I would like to express my deep sense of the honour which has been conferred upon me by the electors of the great State of Queensland, and also my gratitude to the Party which has chosen to put me forward for that honour, including, if I may interpose a personal note, more than 5,000 Queenslanders who departed from their party tickets to vote for me personally. I express those views about the Parliament, and in particular about this chamber, because of my sense of the abiding importance of the role of the Senate in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. As you may know, Mr President, I am a Western Australian. I hail from a very small hamlet-I would not think it is even dignified by the word `hamlet'-called Korbel, which is vicariously distinguished by being only about 30 miles from Doodlakine. Western Australians, like Queenslanders, have always tended to resent what they have, rightly or wrongly, discerned at times as domination from what they have chosen to call `the eastern States'. Therefore, the role of the Senate as a defender of our Federal Constitution comes naturally to me. If it had not done so, 30 years in the service of a Commonwealth government located, so far as its central administration is concerned, wholly in Canberra would certainly have led me to that conclusion. The fact is that in matters of government I have come increasingly to the view that small is beautiful. I would like to turn now to one or two aspects of the Governor-General's address to which I think those remarks are relevant. On page 13 of the printed version of His Excellency's address to us earlier this week, he referred to the Government's intention to support an increase in the term of the House of Representatives to four years, and raised something of a smile on the part of members and senators assembled by saying that he trusted that in that case fewer elections would also result in less cost and inconvenience to the electors. I do not propose to canvass the issue in question, other than to say that, while I personally see merit in longer terms of office for our parliaments, I would oppose to the death any proposal to couple such a measure with proposals which would have the effect of reducing the role and powers of the Senate. I would therefore note in passing that, if the Government wishes in due course to seek truly a consensus upon this in itself rather non-contentious matter, it would be wise to confine its proposals to a very narrow purpose. On another matter relating to what is sometimes loosely called State rights, at page 12 of his printed address His Excellency also referred to the current work of the Constitutional Commission which, he told us, will be recommending changes to the Constitution, and doing so next year, in our bicentennial year. On election night, on 11 July, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, said, in a remark which evoked a warm response from all Australians, that the things that unite us are more important than the things that divide us. Again, let me simply say, without further canvassing the particular matter, that I predict that few things will divide us more, and more savagely, in our bicentennial year than any action on any proposals coming forward from that Commission which seem likely to undermine the established Constitution of Australia. At another point in his remarks His Excellency referred to the Government's agenda for environmental action and he promised that the Government would consult with the Queensland Government and other interested parties in proceeding towards the nomination of the wet tropics of north-east Queensland to the World Heritage List by the end of this calendar year. Again, without canvassing the issue, I say that I am strongly in favour of processes of consultation but I only wish that processes of that kind were followed more at the outset of such matters than when firm positions appear to have been taken on the part of some of the interested parties. Finally on this question of the federal nature of our Constitution, His Excellency referred in the concluding paragraphs of his address to the Government's commitment to the further development of local government. He went on to say that attention would be given by the Government to arrangements for the devolution of programs to local government. My rather simple view of the relationships between the Federal Government and local government is that by and large they have increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished. Recently in the State of Queensland there have been certain developments in this area which give rise to some disquiet there. I shall examine-objectively I trust-the facts of that matter but I foreshadow that this matter may need to be raised on another day in this place. I meant to say earlier that I would return to the H. R. Nicholls Society-not to talk about that Society as such, but rather to talk about the topic to which the energies of that Society are directed, namely, the state of our industrial relations system, the system of wage determination and the determination of other conditions of employment in Australia, the effects of those systems on the capacity of the Australian economy to perform effectively and productively for the enhancement and enrichment of the lives of Australian citizens and Australian workers in particular and, above all, the role of trade unions in a free society and the power and privileges that trade unions have come to command in Australian society. I do so having in mind the great importance of this topic, not merely for the State of Queensland but for Australia. While we are at present directing our attention to the Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last night and all the macroeconomic questions to which that Budget gives rise, I am inclined to think-in fact, I do think-that there is no question in Australia today that is more important to the future of our economy and our society than the role of trade unions in that society. The Governor-General had something to say relating to this question on page 3 of the printed address. He began by saying that the Government would continue its wages policy: . . . which over the past four years has, together with the mature co-operation of the trade union movement, provided the foundation for outstanding employment growth, increased economic competitiveness and enhanced industrial stability. I have very much in mind my need to remain non-provocative, but I want to say that 4 1/2 years on in the life of the present Government Australia now has external debts of $109 billion, just over three times the indebtedness that we had only 4 1/2 years ago. If one prefers figures for net indebtedness, as some people do, one finds that we have net indebtedness to foreigners today, after deducting the debts that some foreigners have to us, of $83 billion. That compares with a figure of only $21 billion 4 1/2 years ago. It is certainly true that our wages policy, together with the mature co-operation of the trade union movement, has provided the foundation for outstanding growth in something-and I suggest that that one thing it has provided the foundation for is growth in our external debt. As to those factors providing the foundation for increased economic competitiveness, I am under the impression that that increased economic competitiveness in recent times-which I welcome-has come rather from the crash in the value of the Australian dollar. Some would argue that the combination of our wages policies and the mature co-operation of the trade union movement had been the single most important contributor to this crash. As to the enhancement of industrial stability, views will no doubt differ. At a time when our coal mining industry is in turmoil and after the unhappy disputes over the past few years at places such as Mudginberri and in the Pilbara-I had some knowledge of the dispute in the Pilbara in my then capacity as a non-executive director of Peko-Wallsend Ltd; a capacity I no longer have-we have seen the degree to which our industrial stability has been enhanced. His Excellency went on to say: The continued reform of outmoded work and management practices to raise productivity will also receive the attention of the Government over the life of this Parliament. I certainly welcome that thought. I note that in the financial year just ended, 1986-87-and these figures are provided in the Budget Papers which were tabled in this place last evening-non-farm gross domestic product rose by 1.9 per cent in real terms. Employment grew by 2.3 per cent. That is another way of saying that national productivity fell by almost half of one per cent. Forecasts for the year 1987-88, in which we now find ourselves, provide for the growth of non-farm gross domestic product of 3 per cent. Employment is forecast to grow by 2 1/4 per cent, thereby suggesting an assumption of productivity growth of three-quarters of one per cent. This unhappily low growth in productivity is notwithstanding the special arrangements said to be made under the second tier of the present wage determination provisions deriving from the wage case concluded earlier this year. At a later stage of his remarks in this area, His Excellency went on to remind us that, during its previous term of office, the Government was presented with the report of the Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, the so-called Hancock report. Again, bearing in mind the conventions associated with a speech of this kind, I do not want to go into that matter in any depth. I do not in any way want to be contentious in doing so, but I do note that the Government has already abandoned its original proposals for transferring the jurisdiction for actions under sections 46d and 46e of the Trade Practices Act from the Federal Court of Australia to the proposed new Labour Court. That proposal, which was, of course, a central feature of the Hancock report, has been abandoned. Similarly, the Government has abandoned other proposals which were a central feature of the Hancock report for denying to employers their access to civil law remedies in the real courts of the land unless they had first obtained permission to bring an action there from the proposed new Labour Court. Most recently the Government has abandoned proposals to increase and strengthen the existing sanction provisions in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act-provisions which have in fact been in disuse since the O'Shea case of the late 1960s-and in other relevant legislation. I urge the Government-I do so in no contentious spirit-to learn from this experience, not to proceed with the proposals to constitute a new Labour Court and not to proceed with proposals to enforce-I emphasise the word `enforce'-amalgamation of small trade unions, and so on. One reason for my concern about the Labour Court is that, apart from any other consequences it may have for our industrial relations system, I firmly believe that it will result in bringing the real courts into disrepute. I conclude on this area by referring to the Governor-General's statement that the Government will also be finalising its policy on employee participation and industrial democracy, following a period of extensive consultation. Those are very sensitive issues. Again, the conventions of speeches of this kind preclude my saying many of the things that I would like to say about them. On this occasion I simply wish to say that I cannot think of many matters which have a greater capacity to divide our employer groups from our trade unions-or, more particularly, not so much from the trade unions but from the workers whom those employers employ-than these measures. It is obvious that there is a role-I totally support such a role-for greater employee participation in our industries. There is a role for a greater recognition of the interdependence of interests between employers and employees. We need to see an end to the zero sum game mentality with which some people approach these questions. We need to see an end to the `them and us' mentality. I say again to the Government side of the Senate that those entirely desirable objectives will not be had by legislating for them, and they will not be had by forcing workers into a much smaller number of even more powerful trade unions, which by definition will be even more divorced from the localised concerns of the individual work places in which those trade unions' members operate. Mr President, I hope that I have not transgressed unduly on the accepted canons of debate on such occasions as this, and I hope also that in sedulously seeking not to transgress them I have not erred on the other side by being dull. If so, perhaps I can be more lively next time. In conclusion, Mr President, I thank very much the staff of the Senate for the many courtesies which in the very short time I have been here they have already extended to me. I express my belief in the traditions of this place of which you, sir, are the custodian. I thank the Senate for the courtesy with which it has heard me. The PRESIDENT —I again remind honourable senators that Senator McLean will be making a maiden speech and I ask that he be extended the usual courtesies. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.36) —Mr President, please accept my sincere congratulations on your re-election to your distinguished office and please extend my congratulations to your deputies also. I congratulate my fellow senators on their excellent maiden speeches. To rise in this place is an honour afforded relatively few Australians and, like all who have done so before me, I savour the special feeling of pride and apprehension-pride in having been chosen, yet apprehension as to whether one is able to fulfil the great expectations placed upon us by our fellow Australians. This shared honour, Mr President, is our great bond; a bond not only among ourselves but to our people. Australians of all States, all persuasions and all circumstances must always be able to trust that our common and sincerely held intention is to serve them first. This common bond is their assurance that good will come from our efforts. Despite the imperfection of the process which occurs here, of which I am now a part, great good has come from it in the past. We salute all who have gone before us in this great service. I take particular pride in rising in this chamber as an Australian Democrat. I might add, sir, that having contested seven elections for upper house chambers, State and Federal, I am somewhat relieved at finally having arrived. It has been a demanding and challenging thing to create a true citizens' party for Australians; one without vested interests and with the ideology of participation; one based on the principles of honesty, tolerance and compassion and one emphasising involvement of its grass roots membership. I was a foundation member of the Australian Democrats and have held most State offices of my Party during its first 10 years. I know its strengths and weaknesses and I know the calibre and intent of those who founded it, who built it, who represent it and who belong to it. To them I say, `Well done and thank you'. I pay special tribute to my colleagues and predecessors, especially former Senator Colin Mason who rendered 10 years distinguished service to the people of New South Wales. As my colleague Senator Powell did when she addressed this chamber for the first time, I must confess to being a typical Democrat. I think I know what is conveyed by such a label and I take pride in it. Of course, Mr Acting Deputy President, we Democrats claim no monopoly on honesty, tolerance and compassion, but we are different in that our Party does confer upon us the special privilege, indeed an obligation, of independence of thought and action to a degree enjoyed by few others in this place. We have also, rather presumptuously, undertaken to strive to maintain honesty not only among ourselves but also in the general political forum. Since we take both these challenges seriously our behaviour may be judged by some as odd. We therefore seek the forbearance of our colleagues in these matters. In gathering my thoughts for this speech I read the maiden speeches of all my Democrat colleagues and quite a few others. It seems a common practice to reveal something of one's philosophical self, of one's motivations and aspirations, and I will do this briefly. We are all, of course, the product of our past but the psychologists tell us that along the way a relatively few and especially profound experiences shape us. These have been referred to as focal experiences. I confess to being a determinist in this respect and I believe that four or five extended experiences have left their mark upon me in my progression towards this new and exciting focal experience. I will cite them briefly because they will explain how I will behave here, what I will fight for and why I will fight for it. I am the son of a coal miner and my mother was the daughter of a tin miner, and this explains a lot about me. I was raised among honest, hardworking people who knew nothing of real wealth or position. Although I was not raised in poverty, I saw enough of it to understand it. Such origins can sometimes give rise to a cynical, resentful acceptance or to a quiet determination. In my case it was fortunately the latter. Believing that a good education was the best thing they could offer me, my parents made great sacrifices to send me to an expensive and fine private school. This, the second of my focal experiences, was a very powerful one indeed. It gave me the opportunity of mixing with people of vastly different origin and circumstances, but most of all it left me utterly convinced of the profound importance of the educational experience. It also guided me to education as my profession and to an extended tertiary education. It was at this time, as an undergraduate in the mid 1950s, that I was conscripted to national service in the Army. I did not find this a negative experience at all. I rather identified with attempts to inculcate in me and others qualities of leadership, endurance and physical and moral courage. I took a commission in the Citizen Military Forces and then in the Australian Regular Army (ARA) specialising in adult education and training. So, for almost 20 years I had an Army connection, and significantly these were the Vietnam years. Although I was fortunate not to see active service, I did have the good fortune of serving in the United Kingdom with the British Army on the Rhine. I therefore retain a real interest in, and have some understanding of, matters relating to defence in general and service life and veterans' affairs in particular. In 1974, after 10 years ARA service, my family and I had lived in several countries and my children had attended a dozen or so schools and so the vagaries of service life induced my resignation-the same reasons which continue to cause the alarming resignation rate which we see today amongst service people. To this point in my life I had been essentially apolitical. I believed that the only vote worth having was a swinging one. Then followed an experience which changed me entirely. Under the excellent Whitlam program called the Australian assistance plan I took up a fascinating role as a social planner with the Central Coast Social Development Council based in Gosford, New South Wales. I was a social catalyst in the community. It was my role to help, at the local level, in defining community objectives and priorities, marshalling resources, formulating plans and initiating and co-ordinating social action at the grass roots. It was a profound experience which taught me a great deal. I became convinced that at least some communities, indeed most, have great capacity to solve their problems if governments provide them with some resources and information and as little obstruction as possible. Furthermore, communities often work with great efficiency, responsibility, economy and accountability. In short, I grew to believe in people power-power to the people-in the devolution of power out of bureaucracies and down to communities. I became hooked on participation; I became sceptical of elitism and disillusioned with some representation. I was a first hand witness to cronyism, obstruction and the downright lack of imagination of some in elected office and some in public service. In embryo and unconsciously I became an Australian Democrat. It only needed something to galvanise my new political being. Little did Don Chipp know when he resigned from the Liberal Party out of his frustration and disillusionment that so many others bearing their own discontent would seize the opportunity of forging a new political force that would so quickly achieve the balance of power in the national Parliament. That is history now and I am proud to have been a part of it. My most recent focal experience, of course, has been to play a part in the founding and building of this instrument of people power, that is, the Australian Democrats. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you realise, as do all senators, to be politically involved is, in itself, very demanding. To successfully build a new political party is an extraordinary achievement. I am sure that His Excellency in his opening address was covertly saying that we in this place must be more than law makers: We must adopt a much more innovative and imaginative role as primary change agents in society. The last three or four decades have seen an explosion in knowledge about society. We have observed, quantified, analysed and documented every conceivable aspect of our lives, yet we have hesitated to take control over our collective selves. We have not faced our responsibilities as change agents. The great challenge is for us to do so in a manner that is in line with an emerging democracy and which preserves civil liberty. It is my view, sir, as a former social planner and social actionist, that governments must in future be much bolder and further sighted. There must be increasing emphasis upon initiatives which result in substantial and relatively rapid social change. Let me give an example of what I mean. It seems that many of our more serious social problems result from the negative aspects of urbanisation and are therefore correctable. I am thinking of drug abuse, rising crime rates, social alienation and aggression in all of its dimensions. Processes of deurbanisation and reurbanisation can be set powerfully in motion simply by a system of taxation zones which induces people to move from cities to rural and semi-rural locales. The very processes of relocation are socially and economically stimulating and new energy technologies offer a potential industrial base for such relocations. Energy can, of course, now be efficiently grown from sugar, wheat, sugarbeat and cassava. Therefore, the energy-employment-deurbanisation triangle offers great potential for innovation and bold government action. This type of massive social change can be readily effected within our free enterprise framework at quite low levels of economic cost and with huge social benefit. The trigger is, as I suggested, tax zoning. Perhaps I can give another example of what I mean by bold social and attitudinal change that Federal Government could readily effect. This time I refer to another area of personal experience, namely, defence. Clearly, in a nuclear age and an essentially peace-seeking country, there is sense and great benefit in shifting emphasis in our defence thinking, organisation and materiel from the offensive to the defensive and from the predominantly military to the predominantly civil defence model. I am certainly not advocating neglect of our defences but rather a shift in emphasis. After all, in this country we still substantially fund our civil defence, our coastal patrols, our voluntary rescuers, our bushfire fighters and other critical organisations by selling cakes and lamingtons on street corners. Yet we resentfully spend annually billions of dollars on the maintenance of clearly inadequate and demoralised defence forces. This is fair neither to ourselves nor to those who have chosen to enlist in these inadequate and grossly neglected services. I hasten to add that, having been there myself, I have great admiration for them and sympathy for their circumstances. We can do much better. A substantially integrated structure, simultaneously providing for civil and military defence needs, is both desirable and possible. I can already hear the outcries of the traditionalists but I did not say that I was proposing bold and far-sighted models. I suspect that the community at large, especially young Australians, would regard such changes and opportunities most favourably. Voluntary service and training in the diverse areas of civil-military defence and community service would once again be attractive as we become decades and generations removed from the bitterness of the Vietnam experience. As an educator, I must call on governments to face boldly the implications of our having created a near literate and numerate society. Through the expenditure of billions of dollars, by making education largely free and compulsory, and over several generations we have almost achieved universal literacy. Furthermore, we claim to be encouraging Australians to be critical thinkers, yet we sit back and let ourselves be force-fed vast quantities of junk and we move inexorably towards a national cultural malnutrition. An examination of any video outlet, any magazine or news stand or a night's viewing of television will attest to this junk diet and an analysis of crime and violence statistics starkly illustrates its effects. Historically, in Western society, the church, the school and the family have been the repositories and transmitters of accepted value-sets. All three are under siege from materialism and are less and less effective in these roles. The vacuum has been filled by entrepreneurs who have successfully contrived and marketed value-sets and sub-cultures for profit. The youth sub-culture is a striking example. As legislators we must be prepared to make judgments about the merits of such value-sets and sub-cultures and to take steps to arrest and reverse processes which we see as social decay. As people become more educated and have access to more and more information they will inevitably demand greater participation in the decision-making process. If democracy does not move in that direction it will not survive at all. I have a strong conviction, therefore, that electoral reforms which provide for heightened participation must be given high priority. In the 10 years since my predecessor, Colin Mason, proposed citizens' initiative to this chamber the climate has moved significantly towards it. Certainly, the Australian Democrats will propose it again in the very near future. Clearly, the current debate in the community concerning the Australia Card proposal and the refusal, so far, to grant a referendum on the question will dramatically heighten interest in mechanisms for citizens' initiative. It is ironical that any Australian can go to a special place, called a TAB, in even the smallest town, take a piece of paper off the wall and express an opinion. We offer our opinions about the most irrelevant of questions such as, `What will win the third race at Randwick on Saturday?' and that sampling of opinion will be processed in the most sophisticated computer in the land. Indeed, the results of that opinion sampling may be seen on every television screen in the country that evening in the form of the TAB odds. Yet we cannot have a say about whether we should have a national identity card, a new national flag or nuclear ships in our harbours. Such ludicrous contradictions will not be tolerated by the community much longer. We, as Australian Democrats, intend to ensure that. Governments of today and tomorrow must be bold, imaginative, innovative and far-sighted. Australians will increasingly demand that they be so. I look forward eagerly to serving the Australian people and my Party in the pursuit of structures, processes and legislation which promote justice, democracy, freedom and the quality of life of Australians now and in the future. I truly believe that the Australian people wish the Democrat presence in this place to be a lasting one. I congratulate my Leader, Senator Janine Haines, on an excellent election campaign which clearly enhanced the public profile and image of our Party. I am deeply honoured to serve my country in this way. I thank my wonderful wife and family for their support and sacrifices and the members of my Party and the voters of New South Wales for their confidence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! Before I call Senator Bishop I remind the Senate that this is a maiden speech and ask all honourable senators to extend the customary courtesies to Senator Bishop. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(5.55) —As I rise to speak on this occasion as a senator for the State of New South Wales I am deeply conscious of the honour that has been bestowed upon me. I would like to place on record my thanks to the voters of New South Wales for their confidence, to the President of this chamber and to other honourable senators, and to officials and staff of the Senate itself for the courtesy and help that have been extended to me. For me this is the fulfilment of a schoolgirl aspiration. At the age of 17 I decided that I wished to pursue a political career. I have asked myself many times why I chose politics so early and I can say only that it came from a study of history. History showed me that the world had two groups of people: firstly, it had those who were part of the decision-making process and actually had some say in the direction that the nation in which they lived took. The second group of people were those who had decisions made for them. I determined that I wished to be part of the decision-making process. Again at the age of 17 I chose to join the Liberal Party. I chose it for a very specific reason. It stood for the things in which I believed and, indeed, in which I still do believe. In particular, it espoused four freedoms: the freedom of the individual, the freedom of choice, the freedom to pursue excellence and the freedom to seek reward for effort. In the Liberal Party those freedoms were available equally to men and to women. So it is with a little pride that I stand here as a little bit of history-that I should have become the first elected woman senator for the State of New South Wales, the mother of all parliaments. I have also asked myself why it has taken so long and I have answered: `It is the strength of the competition'. I console myself in the comfortable knowledge of the excellence of the contribution made by senators who have preceded me. I come to this chamber with areas of specific interest and areas in which I feel I have gained some expertise. My major area of interest is the Pacific Basin, our own region. Since the early 1980s I have been a member of the Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC). In the last 12 months I have been a member of the executive of the Australian committee of that Council. It is a private sector organisation which comprises national committees of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the United States, Canada, Korea and Taiwan, with a regional committee that covers the states of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the Andean states, the Pacific Island states, and the Latins so that they, too, can have a choice in this important body. The words and the terminology that I use in the pursuit of lessening protectionism and lowering tariff barriers as well as non-tariff barriers are `freer and fair trade', as distinct from `free trade', which in the current world is an impossibility. No nation will ever relinquish all of the controls it uses, be it the mechanism of realigning its currency, dumping, or various mechanisms that are not seen as being tariff barriers themselves. At the meeting of the PBEC in Seoul last year I had the honour of chairing a session entitled `Trade Initiatives in the Pacific Basin'. On that occasion I was able to give to an audience which largely comprised Japanese and Korean delegates a paper which looked particularly at the question of agriculture and the barriers to trade in agriculture. It was important on that occasion to make the point, as I did, that if we are to see freer trade in our region it is necessary for Japan and the newly industrialising countries which follow in her stead to open their barriers and allow reciprocity which will permit the sort of trade which allowed Japan to grow to prosperity in the post-war period through a lessening of barriers and the growth of manufactured goods. It is interesting that the resistance to that argument is lessening at successive meetings. I was in San Francisco this year when again the question of agricultural trade was raised in forums with Japanese and Korean delegates. Finally, the rhetoric is beginning to change. In recent years in Australia we have particularly felt the effect of protectionism in the area of agricultural trade. Between the years of 1973 and 1984 we saw the European Economic Community, by the use of its common agricultural policy, go from being a net importer of food to being a net exporter of food. In the 1980s we have felt the effect of subsidised wheat exports on our markets and we saw the bipartisan group of parliamentarians go to Washington to put our case for the United States not to export subsidised grain. Our problems really began in the 1970s. The oil shock of 1973-74 and the recycling of OPEC dollars led to a very high growth particularly in the newly industrialised countries and the lesser developed countries. During that period there was enormous growth. The volume of trade in agriculture in those countries developed by 34 per cent and in lesser developed countries by a staggering 120 per cent. So there was planning in the major food producing countries. There was increased investment in research and development and in grains themselves. There was increased development and investment in acreage. There was a general belief that prosperity in the trade of food would continue to grow. Although the volume of trade had grown by 34 per cent, the price of that trade had also increased to 34 per cent. Thus we have reached the situation in the United States now where the debt that has been escalated by farmers, which in turn has put banks which are dependent on agricultural business at risk, has resulted directly from that recycling of OPEC dollars back in the early 1970s. The growth came to an end with the world recession in 1981-82. It was then that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to reschedule loans of debtor nations. It required two fundamental changes in policy by those debtor nations. When looking at the World Bank and the IMF, it is interesting to see the degree to which those organisations are becoming involved in the internal policies of member nations. It is quite a serious and growing problem. In the period 1981-82 when the debt crisis became great it required, firstly, that the debtor nations become self-sufficient in food and, secondly, that they cut back on imports. They did that very effectively. The growth in our export of foodstuffs from the developed to the developing world was largely based on a change of taste with a developing middle class. When these factors were phased out and debts had to be met, they were very effective in becoming self-sufficient in food again and in cutting back on imports-mainly ours. We now have the classic result of protectionism. We have stockpiles of agricultural products. We have declining commodity prices and we have a clamour for additional protection. Historically, we can look back even further to the inception in 1947 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1947 agriculture was covered by the GATT, but in 1955 the United States of America said that the question of trade in agriculture and food was more important than just trading in a commodity. It said that it was about national security. This is an argument that we are now encountering from Japan, Korea and like countries. It then opted out of the GATT, and other countries, seeing what the United States had done, did likewise. They simply said, `If you are not going to be bound, neither are we'. So that slow but gradual buildup of protected agricultural industry began as early as 1955. It was good to see that there was a bipartisan approach by this Parliament to the problem. We need to phase out trade in subsidised agricultural products. It was good to see that bipartisan approach in insisting that agriculture became the dominant item for the multilateral trade negotiation round which is presently going on. Having stressed the importance of trade in agriculture, I now turn to what I think is the growth area for trade in Australia. It lies with the services area. This is not in any way to decry the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, but I would like to make some comparisons. Measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the following statistics are quite revealing. Manufacturing industry is now 17 per cent of GDP, down from 29.3 per cent in 1959. The health industry is now greater than our retail industry, at 6.9 per cent. The education industry is now larger than our construction industry, at 5.7 per cent. The business services industry is larger than our mining industry, at 6.1 per cent. In 1986 tourism became larger than agriculture in GDP terms. To put it another way; one Japanese tourist visiting Australia is in monetary terms equal to the export of 20 tonnes of Australian wheat. By 1988, 30 per cent of all world trade will be done in services. This should be compared with 1888 when 70 per cent of all trade was done in agriculture. The forecast for the year 2088 is that only 10 per cent of world trade will be in agriculture and mining. Australia is presently dependent upon agriculture for 40 per cent of her export earnings, 40 per cent on the extractive industries and 20 per cent for the rest. We have a major problem which we have to face. Our major extractive export earner is coal and coal is in for a tough time. Not only are we in the position where our major trading partners simply renegotiate contracts, but also we have to realise that that same trading partner has equity investments in mines in southern America, that South Africa is selling coal on the spot market at a most attractive subsidised price. And more and more worrying for Australia is the fact that there is a very large deposit of coal in Kalimantan in Indonesia which is highly accessible, which is superior in grade to that which we take out, particularly of the southern coal mines of New South Wales. We have been able hitherto to be able to get away with some of our work practices and some of our on-costs on the basis that we were selling a superior product in coal. But once the grade of ore from Kalimantan comes on stream we are in for a really tough time. It was interesting to hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) say in the Budget Speech last night that he expected, or hoped, that gold would make up for the loss of earnings in the coal area. There is no doubt about it; the service area is where the service competitive edge for Australia must be honed. The Pacific Basin is a place which we have regarded with benign neglect. It is no longer the tranquil place that its name suggests. Earlier this year I was in Fiji at the time of the coup. It brought home, I think, to all of us who were present that the change and challenge of the Pacific and indeed the Western Pacific, which is our bailiwick, has not been attended to in our policy decision making. Our relations with Indonesia are at an all time low. Our trade with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations has diminished in the last four years by one per cent. Clearly, we do not have a good record in dealing with the nations in our own neighbourhood. I spoke earlier of the profound influence that history has had on my career. Well, the history of this country also records that on 3 December 1854 the Victorian gold miners revolted against legislation which required them to produce on demand, under penalty of #5, their miners' cards. This resulted in the Eureka Stockade. I sincerely hope that history does not repeat itself in the present climate and that the freedom of the individual of which I spoke earlier remains just that-the freedom to be an individual. In the last two years I have had the honour to serve my Party as President in New South Wales. I have made a particular point of being very active and serving the people in the west of Sydney. I have made a decision and an undertaking to open my office in Parramatta, the demographic heart of Sydney. It is important, I feel, that the many people who vote Liberal in those areas are served by a representative when they have no other opportunity at this moment to be so served. I am concerned with the grass roots aspirations of the ordinary people of Australia. We hear in debate much discussion about trade unions and trade union power. However, trade unionists are just awfully good Australians-Australians who care as much as anybody in this chamber about the hopes and aspirations of their children and their children's children. The Australia that I want to see and hope to leave to my children and my children's children is one that pays heed to those freedoms that I began to speak about at the beginning of my speech-the freedom of choice, the freedom to pursue excellence and the freedom to seek reward for effort. As I go forward to serve not only the members of my Party-because I have now been elected to an office which must be more important and broadly based than just those who support us-I sincerely hope that I will keep in mind the grass roots Australians for whom I have so much admiration and respect and with whom I wish to stay very much in contact. I have been honoured to have a hearing such as this for my maiden speech. I know it is customary to place on record again one's thanks to one's family and to one's friends, all of whom have been of assistance. I do not want to do that in a pro forma or merely formal way. I feel that all of us who come into the political arena who have husbands or wives or children have to come with a team effort, with a willingness for it to be a family commitment, or the life simply is not possible. I do hope I have earned the support that my family has given me. I hope I have earned the support that my friends and my Party have given me. I hope I will continue to earn the support of the people of New South Wales. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Thank you for your contribution, Senator Bishop. Before I call Senator Burns, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech in this chamber. I therefore ask all honourable senators to extend the normal courtesies to him in the course of his speech. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(6.14) —It is with a tremendous amount of pride that I stand in this chamber tonight, feeling the power which has been placed in my hands by the electorate of Queensland-power that I will be using in the interests of the people of that electorate and in the interests of all Australians. I also have a deep sense of humility in terms of the trust that they have placed in me and my ability to discharge that trust 100 per cent. In my experience of dealing with people who have been either politicians or budding politicians I have heard them when congratulating each other make such comments as, `Isn't it great, you are now in the House; you are a parliamentarian', as though that were an end in itself. I want to make it clear to everybody in the chamber and to those people out there listening on their radios that my position in the Senate represents to me only a tool, such as a carpenter or cabinetmaker would use to produce a beautiful piece of furniture, or a weapon that one would use in defence of oneself. I see my role as a tool or a weapon to be used at appropriate times. I will be seeking to create a better life for all Australians and to defend them against excesses and exploitation. Senator Stone made a comment in which he used the word `provocation'. I guess that is a word with which I have a lot of familiarity. I find it difficult when waging a spirited defence or fight on behalf of people I represent to be otherwise. I guess that feeling is similar to the one behind a statement which people make so many times, that they will not talk about religion or politics. These are probably the two matters upon which most arguments develop and which are the most interesting that we talk about in life. I understand the role of the House; I understand the attitude people have about States rights. I am an Australian from Queensland standing in this House. I have long believed in Father Christmas. I no longer believe this is a States House in the sense that it was when it was set up all of those years ago. In those days it was appropriate to regard it as such. But I saw a Labor government destroyed by an action of this House in 1975, and it was certainly not in the interests of the reputation of this House and what it was seen to stand for. I have seen our Government in Queensland, for its own narrow, selfish political ends, ignore the fact that electors in that State had decided that they should be represented in a particular way by a particular party political senator and send another person who did not represent those views. So I understand how the House works, and I hope to make a contribution to seeing that it works in the best possible way in the future. I hope never to see an experience such as I observed in 1975. I had a very early knowledge of the need for political activity on behalf of trade unionists. After all, they and their families make up the majority of the community in Australia. I was raised in a family. My father was a railway engine driver all of his life; my mother was a housewife. They said to me then: `When you have the vote, vote for the Australian Labor Party; a crook Labor Party is better than a good Liberal Party'. I question, I suppose, the level of intellectual understanding of life and where it goes embodied in that statement, but I do not question their experience and the correctness of what they were saying to me, as it has been shown to me over a period of time. They also relayed to me their political experiences in terms of putting faith in Labor politicians rather than Labor Party policy and Labor Party principles. When my grandmother was approached by a politician who had been in the Labor Party all his life-she had voted for him for some years-he said: `You know, dear, I had to leave the Party; the Party has changed'. My grandmother said: `Mr Grant, you've changed, not the Labor Party'. So I learned a few lessons even as a young boy about what life showed one, what principle was about and what I should do given the opportunity. My experience as a trade union officer with the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the metal trades group of unions and the Trades and Labour Council of Queensland helped to create within me a strong desire-a determination-to serve those people who were forced to band together as trade unionists to seek reasonable wages and working conditions within an environment permeated by the greed of the majority of employers who required low wages, unsafe working environments and insecurity of employment. These were the means by which they terrorised workers into accepting their role as factory fodder to be used in the pursuit of more and more profit. I have read some articles about the 1898 shearers dispute. When I talk to some people about it they say that I am old enough to have been there, but that is not true. I heard Senator Stone talk about the real courts. What I say now is not intended to reflect at all on current courts. I have read an historical document which indicated that during that shearers strike a Chief Justice in Rockhampton who was hearing a case suggested that the police should have used their revolvers on the strikers because they were creating a problem with the free labourers. I am sure that that experience did not encourage people to have more support for the real courts and less support for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which was set up later. I would suggest that both of these areas have a role to play in our community in terms of creating the right sorts of conditions by making decisions which are seen by all to be good decisions in law, that care about people and ensure a proper, fair and equitable opportunity for all in the community. I mentioned the word `power' a while ago. I have found that people seem to look at this word and say, `Well, it is disgraceful'. They seem to think that someone is intending to stand over someone else-that someone is intending to misuse some ability that he has. In my view, `power' is a word that should be used often because it can be used to create good circumstances for people in the community. It can create better living standards and it can be used to defend people. However, power can also be used for evil. The trade union movement that I worked for was a very defensive organisation. All that it worried about was living standards, industrial health, wages and working conditions. That union allowed employers to set the agenda in respect of manufacturing and job opportunities. I must say that in those days the Australian Labor Party to some degree tended to head in that direction. However, the Labor Party still argued about other things. Of course, the trade union movement is so often accused of taking into its hands power and doing things that are against the interests of the community. However, the trade union movement talks about things like disarmament, world peace, being opposed to the use of nuclear weapons and directing funds that are now used in the so-called pursuit of defence. In fact, it is very hard to think of an intercontinental missile being a defensive weapon because it can be used to destroy the other person before it destroys us. I am sure that our best means of defence lies in trying to create the sort of world where we can all live in peace, using an international court to resolve our problems, and having more consideration for people wherever they live. We should be seeking an increased quality of life for all of them. The trade union movement has been at the forefront of the struggle for civil liberties. Aboriginal people are amongst those who have had fewer civil liberties as a group than any people in this community. I must say that the trade unions were involved and helped, as did the Labor Party when in opposition, in the days when little money came from governments to help these people. So the trade union movement has a very good principled and moral attitude in that regard. I was interested to hear Senator Bjelke-Petersen talk about people marching in respect of the ID card. I can remember one night being the guest of the Queensland Government in a watch house cell because I dared to take into my hands, as did about 5,000 other people, the right to march down the street to protest against uranium mining. The situation is as the honourable senator says-it depends on what one represents; not whether one wants to put forward a point of view to which one has a right. The right to march is there if one wants to seek to destroy or discredit a Labor government. In fact one is welcome to do it. However, if one is going to do something that will help the workers to oppose the National Party Government in Queensland, one will find oneself on the end of police action. I have always believed, and I state here for the record, that the majority of police in Queensland are decent people. It is not untrue that a lot of people who criticise them seek their help when they are in trouble. That is a true statement. There are many police who give that help. There are many who see their job as one that is needed in the community and they handle that job in a responsible and humane way. However, a small group of police is prepared to be used by any government of the day, as a Labor government did in 1948 against the trade union movement, and beat people down in an unmerciful way. So I do not want to be treated to another dose of hypocrisy about the use of marching to protest about something with which we disagree. The trade union movement has been in the forefront of protection and conservation of the environment. I join with my friends in the Australian Democrats in regard to their attitude to those things. I recall that when we sought to stop mining on Fraser Island, which is probably one of the most beautiful islands in terms of beach area that one would find, we were threatened by the State Government with all sorts of dire results. Finally, the island was mined. I do not enjoy having to say this, but I must note that the Fraser Government at that time prevented the mining by some use of sanctions as far as exports were concerned. That is why it was good to hear Senator Chris Puplick say that he also agreed that we should preserve the rain forests in north Queensland. But there again we have a situation in which police have been used against strikers as they were in the South East Queensland Electricity Board dispute in which people were arrested and charged incorrectly as a result of an appeal to a higher court. Police were used against those people. Senator Graham Richardson, our Minister for the Environment and the Arts, went to north Queensland and was attacked by short-sighted, unthinking, fascist-type people-there may be some risk in using that term because I intend to go up there myself. He was attacked and it appears that he got very little help from the local constabulary. I must say that my advice to him would be that next time he should take the Australian Federal Police with him. I do not believe that he should be subjected to that sort of thing when he is carrying out a task, which has the support of the majority of the people of this country, to protect an area which is so beautiful and pristine as is Fraser Island and that I mentioned a moment ago. However, the maintenance of such areas do not seem to concern the Queensland Government at all. In fact, the Queensland Government seems to have a propensity for getting people to knock down historic buildings at night time. I am surprised that it does this because it does not like paying overtime. However, apparently the Queensland Government gets these people to work on the cheap. One can go to bed one night thinking about going the next day to have a look at something that is historic and can never be replaced and find that overnight it has been destroyed. I am talking about things old and not so old that have a place in the hearts of the people of Queensland. Again, this shows the concern of the Queensland Government for anything decent. The trade union movement supported, as has the Labor Government, the proposition of public ownership of enterprises. I will fight fervently for those public enterprises to be maintained and owned in the interests of the community. The trade union movement, as I said a moment ago, has always been fairly defensive when faced with those people who seek to exploit the community by shifting pieces of paper around at the stock exchange and in the banking system. Those people will have to pay the bill for better social services and for whatever reductions in taxation can be given to the ordinary people in the community. After all, to give those who create the wealth, those who make things with their hands and those who give their services and use their brains to create a better opportunity and to increase their standard of living, it is fairly obvious that those people who shift the paper around will have to pay the bill. When we look at the wealth they have accumulated, we see that there is plenty there to give away without leaving them destitute. People talk about what is in the best interests of this country. Who should decide this? Should it be the owners of the means of production and finance? My answer is no, it should not. Should it be the labour movement, which seeks a broad input which is consensus oriented? My answer to that is yes. Workers participating in enterprises have been successful in West Germany. Many employers and other people have accepted that as a way in which industry can operate, but only on the basis that they feel that tame cat unions have pandered to the wishes of employers. But I am one of those people who believe, and the trade union movement is an organisation which believes, that we should involve the trade unions in decision making so that, in the process, they accept responsibility for certain results and certain standards of performance in the production of goods and services. Some people talk about participation in the way in which they might, if they were an official in a government, suggest to a condemned man, `How would you like to go-would you like to be hanged or put in the electric chair?'. He would be participating in the decision. The end would be pretty much the same and not pleasant. The involvement of workers in the important area of retraining and in the restructuring of industry is tremendously important. We can see the way in which the two-tier wage argument by the Australian Council of Trade Unions was put together and the resulting decision about how people could justify to the Commission an increase in wages for various classifications. Ten years back down the track nobody would have thought that certainly the Metal Workers Union would have accepted that we would have to forgo some traditional ways in which we worked-in some cases receiving some additional money and in some cases being guaranteed job security-albeit they were very impractical and very ineffective ways in which to operate. Let me say that that way of operating, by using two or three people to do a job that one or two should do, we were taught by employers. Under the old system of cost-plus after the war, the more something cost the more profit was made. Of course, when it came to the situation of contracts with fixed prices, the trouble began. We were asked to break out of the traditional way in which we had seen things. I must say that we were not encouraged to do it because of the way in which it would affect us. But in more recent times we have come to realise that it is not possible to stand still and that, if we are selfish, we in fact do harm not only to the community, but also to ourselves and to those we care most about. Some years ago a document called the prices and incomes accord was put together. For the first time, a government and the trade union movement agreed to a centralised wage fixing system which at least dampened down wage increases and set up principles by which wages could be given. We must look at that in light of the fact that in the previous 18 months the Fraser Government was in power and there was an escalation in prices of some 9 per cent which meant a loss in real wages of 9 per cent and no wage increases at all. Anybody who thought the trade union movement could accept that, even if it had wanted to, was quite foolish and certainly ill-advised. For the first time the Government and the trade union movement were able to get together in the interests of the total community. That was an important stage for both the people in the working community and the Government to reach. Primary industries have always been a very important part of our productive effort. They have also brought in a lot of income from overseas for many years. The old saying that Australia rode on a sheep's back testifies to that in history. The mining industry has contributed a tremendous amount in that regard. Miners have gone down into the bowels of the earth and risked their lives, and some have lost them, whereas the people in charge have only had to worry about losing their profits-and they do not seem to have done that in recent years. They want to cut costs, cut workers' wages and cut workers living standards and they never look at cutting their own profits. I say that because it is my experience. It is hard not to get into a debate with Senator Stone, because he says things that really need to be discussed. I would not say that he was right, even if I thought so, because he might assume that I agreed with him, and I would not want that to happen. He talked about there being an enlargement of debt, and it is true that that has happened. Senator Bishop said that there had been a reduction in manufacturing from 29 per cent in 1959 to 17 per cent in 1987. Anybody who thinks that that reduction has occurred by accident either has not kept up with what has been written in the newspapers or has not read documents that have come out of this Parliament or have been publicised and distributed by other organisations in the community. There had been a definite policy to destroy manufacturing industry, particularly in Queensland, and to foster the mining and minerals industry and, of course, the primary industries as a whole. No wonder that occurred. That policy has had a tremendous effect on the balance of payments. If we want to understand how, we have only to consider the value of a shipload of wheat exported from Australia to Europe and compare the cost of transport and the invisibles-the money that goes overseas-with our ability to develop technology and to develop markets to which we could send the same ship full of computers. This would be of tremendous assistance in trying to turn around the balance of payments. I am not suggesting that farmers should no longer grow and export wheat, but I am suggesting that the manufacturing industry is of vital importance to this country. The trade union movement again came good, as it always does, and produced a document, a copy of which I have here, called Australia Reconstructed, which seems to have been criticised by everybody in the Opposition. But my impression is that they are always careful not to read it before they criticise it. I am sure that anybody in the New Right who read it would do so with a fairly jaundiced eye and would not look objectively at it. What is our position with regard to what took place in the past? In this country we have been using ancient machine tools, many of which are over 50 years old. We have had bad management and a dishonest response to union and government measures. I refer here to the heavy engineering package and other forms of assistance which the Government has given in terms of training and retraining and to the question of wage restraint and the higher profits that went with that at a time when we were being continuously told by Liberal-National Party governments that, if we were prepared to forgo wages, higher profits would result and more investment would go back into the industry so that jobs would be created. That is what we were stuck with. We now have a different situation. We have a trade union movement that wants to see amalgamation so that it can become more efficient in the way it approaches its daily work and in the way it can contribute to a more efficient industry-not for higher profits for a few people, but to create riches for the whole community which can be reallocated through taxes or other measures which can be introduced by the Government, or in some cases by negotiation between the parties at the levels of management and labour. That document is a strategy which goes to the question of fairness and equity. Let me quote a couple of items dealt with in the document. It talks of investment for import replacement, export expansion and industry modernisation. I do not know anybody who would oppose that as a principle or a goal. It also talks of new product, process and new enterprise development. Any self-seeking or even a decent businessman would want that. It then talks of management and work practices to improve the efficiency of enterprises. How could anyone argue against that? It also deals with dispute settling procedures. I have always advocated dispute prevention procedures. It deals with occupational health and safety. A healthier person in a safe working environment will always produce better quality and greater quantities of goods and services. It deals with industrial democracy and workers having a right to a say in the community and in what they do. There is also the obtaining of equal opportunity, particularly for women, which the trade unions have successfully struggled for and won. That is the background I come from, and it is from that background and from that point of view that I will be struggling in this chamber by way of debate and influence, and outside the chamber as well, on behalf of people who have those sorts of goals and aspirations that are in the interests of the whole of our country. Let me say, though it may be seen to be foolish, that there will even be occasions, when someone from the other side comes up with a good proposition, when my innate honesty and integrity will not allow me to disagree. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Thank you for your contribution, Senator Burns. Before calling Senator Tambling, I remind honourable senators that this is the honourable senator's first speech in this chamber, and I would ask that the normal courtesies be extended to him. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(6.42) —It is indeed a challenge to respond to the Speech by the Governor-General to the Parliament. I have enjoyed and appreciated the courtesies that have been extended to me in the past few weeks by the 16 other new senators in this chamber and also by the staff of the Senate and the Parliament generally and many other people who have encouraged me in coming here. I have also enjoyed the confidence and support of my predecessor in this place, Senator Bernie Kilgariff, and of my wife, Sandy. I have had the opportunity to represent electors in the Northern Territory at four levels of government-local government in Darwin, the Territory Parliament itself, the House of Representatives, and now in this Senate. Therefore, this is hardly a maiden speech. However, like my Senate colleague from the Northern Territory, Bob Collins, who spoke earlier today, I will never be apologetic about being parochial in my advocacy for the Northern Territory, and it will be a real pleasure to take up causes in this place for all Territorians. I will reciprocate the trust and support of my Northern Territory electorate and party political supporters and my family. Today I would like to illustrate some of the issues of the Northern Territory by taking some of the Senate's time to concentrate on examples of a few vital and involved Territorians. Their lifestyles and their contributions to the community will be the types of issues and concerns I would like to become involved in in this place. Thanks to the history books, the achievements of the early explorers and pioneers of the Northern Territory have been recorded for posterity. Names like McDouall Stuart, Leichhardt, John Flynn and Hudson Fysh spring to mind. But what of the present day pioneers who have put their faith in the future of the Territory by settling there and contributing to the development of this great frontier part of Australia? Many people are today accepting the challenge of living and working in a part of Australia they believe has the potential to become the greatest State of Australia. Take Maurice Blake and his family, who have sunk $2.5m into a lime plant near Mataranka. They have done it alone with no government help, and after four years of getting operational they look forward to full production, which could be worth $7m a year. The lime will be processed for gold mines, as a neutraliser for the acid in the rock during gold extraction, and a big percentage is being used at the Ranger uranium mine. Can honourable senators imagine ice-cream being manufactured in and exported from the tropics? It seems an unlikely idea but that is exactly what Helen and Frank Lo Castro hope to do when their applications for the necessary licences are approved and they appoint overseas distributors. Theirs is an extraordinary story of persistence and hard work, which started in 1977 when they started a home occupation business producing and packing gelati on a small scale machine imported from Italy. They have now expanded into frozen pizzas and three packaged frozen beef dishes. Frank is Italian, a builder by trade, and he and Helen, who is Maltese, met in Darwin and married. He spent a year building their new factory on the outskirts of the city and Helen took on the production, marketing and delivery of their products. At present they distribute only throughout the Northern Territory and have not yet made inroads interstate. For the past three years though they have been sending samples to Brunei, Hong Kong and Singapore, and with the help of Austrade when their licence applications have been approved the sky will be the limit. The Lo Castros borrowed heavily to get started, and their persistence and faith in their product should soon pay dividends. Another brave venture in the Top End of recent years was the establishment south of Darwin of a crocodile farm. The brainchild of Malcolm Eardly, it was considered as crazy, financial suicide, and many other unkind things, but today his faith has been justified. He is no longer connected with the venture, but thanks to his foresight the crocodile farm is a thriving enterprise with an assured future. It has three shareholders-Lowan Farm Products, which incidentally is another modern pioneering effort, Territory Milling and Hannon Properties. Since the passing of legislation allowing the farming of crocodiles for their skins, the Darwin Crocodile Farm has found its feet after an initial period when it was kept afloat by tourism. The first shipment of skins will be ready for export in October and firm offers from potential customers in France, Singapore, Germany, Italy and Japan are expected soon. In full production the farm expects to reach $1m in exports. With the other two farms in the Top End it is estimated that the export earnings will exceed $5m in the initial stages, and much more later. Top End saltwater crocodile skins are considered the best grade in the world and will be eagerly sought. A director, John Bache, says the present rosy situation is the result of six years of research and development and a colossal gamble on whether crocodiles could, in fact, be bred in captivity and whether legislation could be passed allowing skin farming. He says the prospects today are excellent because of the legality of Australian crocodile farms which safeguards overseas buyers through a tagging system of the skins. Another of the thriving enterprises in the Top End is the 60-acre tropical fruit farm established at Humpty Doo, south of Darwin, by K and M Farms. In only one year this has developed into a million dollar industry with the potential to become a multimillion dollar industry. K and M Farms can be described as the `brains and brawn outfit'. The brains are supplied by business manager Fred Karlson and the brawn by Harry Murray. Harry is a real down to earth latter day pioneer who came to the Top End about 20 years ago after a varied career which included growing apples and pears in New South Wales. The farm's main crop is now rockmelons, but it also produces watermelons, butternut pumpkins and all tropical fruits. After experimenting with the infertile soil in the area and adding the necessary trace elements and fertilisers, Harry has found that the farm can cope with a double planting of melons every year. Further experiments such as this could see the success of triple planting. Together with Arnhem Produce and Homestead, K and M Farms has formed a new company, Brolga Exports, to give continuity of exports. Rockmelons and mangoes are exported to Singapore three times a week when they are in season and markets in Europe are being singled out and explored. According to Harry Murray there is no shortage of markets. The limiting factor in his business is a shortage of land and the high cost of water is also crippling, with one seasons's bill being around $25,000. Harry is the sort of guy who works from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. at peak periods. He has the real pioneering spirit and he says he loves the life and would not consider leaving. Another spectacular success story in the Northern Territory is concerned with health. It is the Menzies School of Health Research, established as a joint venture of the Northern Territory Government, the Menzies Foundation and the University of Sydney. The school was conceived as a centre of excellence in research and post-graduate education on matters of relevance to health in tropical and arid regions of the Northern Territory. Special characteristics set the Territory apart from the rest of Australia in that its health problems are those of both developed and developing societies. The Territory has a need for special programs of health education and research, particularly in the areas of heart disease, trachoma, chlamydia, hepatitis B, alcohol-related diseases, nutrition and infectious diseases generally. Research and educational programs are already under way in these and other areas. In the longer term the school will expand its activities into the South East Asian areas, particularly in the field of post-graduate studies. The development of the school was made possible through the activity and support of many individuals and organisations. The Menzies Foundation offered to provide money to meet the costs of a director for the first three years. International academic standards were ensured by the agreement by the University of Sydney to recognise the school as a department of its faculty of medicine and financial security was assured when the Northern Territory Government agreed to provide funds for the school for an initial period of five years. With the tightening of the economy, fund raising has become a major issue. Fund raising from corporate and private donors is necessary to develop new initiatives and complement the basic funding from the Northern Territory Government and the Menzies Foundation. Specific research projects are funded by seeking grants in open competition with the best researchers in Australia and overseas. In an overview contained in the school's first two-year report, the director, Professor John Mathews, said there was no doubt that the greatest challenges in preventive medicine were in the area of Aboriginal health. In the short term the possibilities for preventive social action were limited by the availability of funds, the difficulties of delivering preventive and health care programs to those in greatest need, the differences in social perceptions of health and the causes of ill health and by the limited numbers of highly trained Aborigines who could develop, explain and implement programs in Aboriginal communities. He said that there was a need for more Aborigines to be trained in relevant administrative, technical and professional skills to help resolve some of these difficulties. Professor Mathews pointed out that not only would the school contribute to the national and international research efforts to reduce the toll caused by high blood pressure, diabetes, heart diseases and cancer but it was also uniquely placed to discover new strategies for the prevention and treatment of health problems which are particularly frequent in northern and central Australia. For example, although otitis media is a major cause of deafness and educational impairment in Aboriginal children the primary cause is unknown and there are no effective means of treatment or prevention. The school has developed a multi-disciplinary program of research to test the hypothesis that otitis media is caused by infection of the ear by chlamydia, the germ which also causes trachoma. If this proves to be the case, this will have important implications for the prevention of ear disease by means of a vaccine to prevent chlamydial infestation. The Federal Government could play an important part in ensuring that the work of the school continues by giving it what it needs most-money. In the field of education much is being done. At one end of the education spectrum in the Northern Territory is the newly established Northern Territory University College, financed entirely by the Northern Territory Government since the Federal Government declined to provide finance before 1991 at the earliest. Courses started in February this year and include Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. Post-graduate enrolments for Master of Arts, Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy will be accepted from this year onwards. Under a contract degrees will be awarded to graduates by the University of Queensland until the college becomes an independent university. Commonwealth expenditure per capita on tertiary level education in the Territory is lower than in other States. The provision of funds on the same per capita basis would go a long way to financing the university development. Proof of the need for a university lies in the fact that at the beginning of this year 247 students enrolled and 206 attended. Next year the Northern Territory University anticipates that more than 400 students will participate. At the opposite end of the spectrum are the schools of the air at Katherine and Alice Springs. The Katherine school covers 800,000 square kilometres and services 225 students. There are 18 teachers backed by a clerical staff of eight. The Alice Springs school covers 1.56 million square kilometres covering the area north to Renner Springs, east to the Queensland border, west into Western Australia and 300 kilometres into South Australia. Fourteen teaching staff, supported by five clerical staff, provide education for 142 students. The principal, Fred Hockley, says the greatest change in his 5 1/2 years has been the introduction of the home video loan scheme, the brainchild of Malcolm Fraser in 1981 and continued by successive governments. He said that the scheme cut down the disadvantage of isolation and that educational television programs could be copied by the school of the air and sent to outback students, providing an invaluable service. It is to be hoped that this scheme will continue to be funded by the present Federal Government. Mr Hockley points out that the proliferation of television dish antennae has not eventuated. In the area covered by the Alice Springs school of the air only 15 per cent of families have a satellite dish to receive Australian Broadcasting Corporation programs, giving the lie to the belief in the south of a boom in information to the outback. Another great change was the shift in status of the school's pupils. In 1982 between 75 and 80 per cent of the pupils came from cattle stations. Today it is 55 per cent. The reason for that is that greater services are going to Aboriginal communities. The people in the bush are still waiting for something more technological to happen. From being top of the list for satellite reception they are now far down the list. Communication in the bush is still very poor. Many people, particularly those living in the south, believe that there has been a great technological push to the outback but schools of the air such as Alice Springs and Katherine will be needed for some time yet, especially with the present move to outback areas because of extension to road construction, tourism and other development. The Northern Territory has a history of trade with Indonesia that predates by centuries the arrival of Europeans in Australia. In more recent years the Northern Territory has been working on building even closer co-operation between the two areas. A recent visit to Indonesia by the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Steve Hatton, and a party of seven officials highlighted the importance placed on close ties with Indonesia by the Northern Territory Government. While he was there Mr Hatton made special mention of the teacher and student exchanges and the development of education exchanges between the two countries, opportunities for mutual developments in tourism, cattle and buffalo exports and co-operative health programs. Close ties are also being established with the promotion of teaching of Indonesian as a second language throughout the Northern Territory school system. By 1990 it will be compulsory for all primary students and will be available to every secondary student. Already there are more students studying Indonesian in the Northern Territory than in the rest of Australia. The ties also extend to cultural and sporting exchanges, from boxing to the Darwin to Ambon yacht race. The ties now also extend to commerce from the private sector in Alice Springs. Getting in on the ground floor has been the secret of one of the most successful manufacturing companies in the Northern Territory, Peter Morgan Refrigeration. Peter moved to Alice Springs from Adelaide in 1985, which turned out to be a boom time for the town. The company manufactures mobile cool rooms and with great gusto the enterprise was developed in earnest. Through Austrade, Peter promoted the company through Indonesia and Malaysia and he is on the verge of signing joint manufacturing contracts which could result in an initial 100 units being sold in Indonesia alone, worth about $1 1/2m. Peter believes there is limitless potential for his type of business in South East Asia. In Malaysia he is on the ground floor because of the value of his product to primary industry and fishing-two of the main industries in that country. Added to that, he says he has heard nothing but good reports in feedback about his product. The Territory's most important natural resources are minerals. For more than a century mining has played a key role in Territory development. Last year the mining industry produced mineral products with a value of over $1 billion. As projects now being developed come into production, the growth in value of the industry's total output will accelerate. At present there are seven major mining organisations extracting uranium, bauxite, manganese, gold, silver, lead and zinc. In addition, one firm is producing uranium oxide from stockpiled ore. There are also smaller mining operations recovering tin, tantalum, gold, lead and silver. In the Pine Creek area the revival in gold mining has been led by Pine Creek Goldfields Ltd, a joint venture between Renison Goldfields Consolidated Ltd and enterprise Gold Mines NL. This company started operations at Pine Creek in October 1985 after two years of exploration. Initial investment was $35m, and another $10m has been added this year to increase output by 40 per cent. The budget of 58,000 ounces of gold for the 1986-87 year has been exceeded with the production of 61,702 ounces. The engineering superintendent, Russell Luxford, believes the operation has a life of six to seven years with expansion to ground close by which could prove viable. It is particularly pleasing to report that the Aboriginal community is also producing its modern pioneers through the medium of tourism. From the far north on Melville Island to the Centre, Aboriginal people have become involved in establishing closer understanding between blacks and whites. On Melville Island, a joint development between the Tiwi people, the Tiwi Land Council and Australian Kakadu tours has been launched, although the Land Council has no financial equity in the venture at present. The venture is at Putjimirra on the north-west of the island, with the Tiwi people providing the guiding services for two, three, four and five day tours with fishing, foraging and hunting. This venture started in May this year and is working well. In Kakadu, one of the traditional owners, Mick Alderson, is operating Bamurradjadjam (Wild Goose) Tours with development assistance from the Northern Territory Tourist Commission. Mick's tours are restricted to his own part of Kakadu and emphasise birdlife and Aboriginal land use. His tours started in July after eighteen months of preliminary work, and today average 45 per cent loadings. In the centre, Herman and Mavis Malbunka, and their assistant Alison Hunt, run Ipolera outstation west of Hermannsburg. This is a joint development with assistance from the Tourist Commission, the Central Land Council and the Aboriginal Development Commission. A two-day tour to the outstation also takes in Palm Valley and Glen Helen Gorge. Men and women are taken separately for bush walks to religious sites and to sample bush tucker. They are then brought together for billy tea and damper. Of course, these are only a few of the pioneering tourism enterprises that are operating successfully throughout the Northern Territory. In addition to these individual efforts, the armed services are also playing their part in the pioneering of the Northern Territory. The Royal Australian Air Force's new base at Tindal and naval expansion stand out. In particular, I will mention the Australian Army which has a role at all levels of military involvement in peacetime and wartime. Principally there is the presence of Norforce, which was established in July 1981 as a successor to the 7th Independent Rifles. This unit has a war strength of 637. Its present strength is 292 plus 36 regulars. A recruiting program is planned for October. Norforce operates over 1.76 million square kilometres of the Territory's top end and into the Kimberleys. It is breaking new ground in defence areas. Norforce was a defence pioneer in that it was the first of the three regional force surveillance units formed to date. The others are in the Pilbara and Cape York. In turn, Norforce will be supplemented by another pioneer, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, which will be in the Territory in force in 1992 with a strength of 850 and support units. It is worth noting that Norforce has also pioneered the training of Aborigines and has developed an excellent relationship with Aboriginal communities through their presence in the bush when on exercises. The majority of patrols are required to live off the land and to supplement issued rations when they are out in the bush. This emphasises the importance of a close relationship that has been established between the Defence personnel and the Aborigines. The pioneering efforts of these people that I have mentioned and dozens more have helped to stabilise the Northern Territory and to hasten its march towards statehood. That march is now at an end. It is time the Federal Government recognised that statehood is essential now if Territorians are to take their place as equal Australians, with the same rights, privileges and responsibilities and the same degree of self-determination as other Australians. Territorians will no longer allow themselves to be treated as second class citizens. It has already been announced by the Federal Government that financially the Northern Territory will be treated equally with the other States from next year. If the Northern Territory is to be funded on a State-type basis and at the same time have the full range of responsibilities and rights, it is only fair that Territorians should have statehood. The long term evolution of the Territory has been towards statehood and it is now not a question of if but when. The Northern Territory and its people have proved themselves. With statehood, this great gateway to Australia could become the great northern State of the future. This is a unique opportunity for the Labor Government to become a pioneer because the opportunity to grant statehood will not come again in Australia's history. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(7.08) —I rise to speak on the motion for the Address-in-Reply. I wish to focus particularly on page 5 of His Excellency's Speech where he deals with the area of defence. His Excellency, on behalf of the Government, stated: The policies outlined in the Defence White Paper presented to the last Parliament will further enhance Australia's defence capabilities and increase the involvement of Australian industry. In recent times there has been a lot of praise for the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and for the Government's Defence White Paper referred to by His Excellency. With the help of a loyal news media, more garlands will no doubt be heaped on the Minister and the document. Make no mistake about it: for saving us from the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, the Minister does deserve some gratitude. However, we should not get carried away with gratitude. The White Paper is a competent document but it is not a work of strategic genius. After all, it leaves out of its considerations the whole of Australia's western flank and its exposure to the Indian Ocean and to strategic developments there. A job left hugely incomplete cannot earn top marks. The fact is that the White Paper is still only a draft statement. The Government and its departmental and academic advisers have a long way to go before they can produce an integral strategic policy for Australia. This policy needs to take into account the extraordinary growth of Indian naval power and to contemplate what India plans to do with a navy twice the size of any two regional navies and equipped to conduct sea control operations on lines of sea communication which are important to Australia and vital to our neighbours and trading partners. The fact that these important questions have not been considered in the White Paper reflects a view widespread in the defence bureaucracy that India does not form part of our region. It is true that India is a long way from Australia and that an almost empty Indian Ocean stands between us. Madras is 6,653 kilometres from Perth and 5,510 kilometres from the North West Cape. There is a lot of water for an invader to cross and there are no handy jumping off points even for those parties of raiders which loom large in the figuring of the Government's defence advisers. From the North West Cape in the direction of India, the nearest land is Christmas Island, 1,613 kilometres away and the Cocos Islands, 2,150 kilometres away. Being occupied Australian territories, they would not be ideal places from which to launch a surprise swoop on to the north west Australian coast. So why then does Australia need a two-ocean navy, as it has been grandiosely called in the White Paper, with one half of it based on HMAS Stirling? It is unlikely that the purpose of an Indian Ocean fleet is to throw back a sea borne invasion by India. If honourable senators look at the White Paper they will find no fully essayed rationale for having an Indian Ocean fleet. Admittedly, on page 12 of the White Paper there is this important observation: Australia's region of primary strategic interests lies in South-East Asia, the South-West Pacific, and the East Indian Ocean. However, while the White Paper devotes space to discussing South East Asia and the south west Pacific, there is no discussion, not even a line, on the east Indian Ocean. Oddly, Antarctica, which is outside our area of `primary strategic interest' rates two paragraphs. The best the document has to offer on the subject of a western fleet is a few scattered fragments of suggestions and elementary strategic insight. For example, under the heading `Naval infrastructure' on page 47 of the White Paper we read: . . . homeporting of major fleet units at HMAS Stirling recognises the need for the navy to be able to operate effectively from both coasts for the direct defence of Australia. Understood in the light of the Government's strategic assessments, the phrase `direct defence' means counter action against attacks, short of all-out invasion, on the Australian mainland or our territories or against our coastal shipping or offshore installations. That is how the phrase `direct defence' is described on page 24 of the White Paper. One can infer from the White Paper that the Government believes that small forces operating from Indonesia might be the most likely threat that our Indian Ocean fleet would have to deal with. A look at the map makes it clear that naval forces deployed from HMAS Stirling are well positioned to defend against military action originating from Indonesia and for launching counterattacks in Indonesian waters. Clearly, Indonesia's south-western flanks are as exposed to attacks delivered from our west coast as that coast is from attacks launched from the north. This exposure of Western Australia to the north dictates the need for substantial defence forces to be deployed in the west. Beyond the facts of geography are those of international relations. The White Paper reconfirms at page 3 Australia's obligation to provide protection and control for shipping under the Radford-Collins agreement. Under this agreement, Australia's area of maritime responsibility in the Indian Ocean extends out to longitude 60 degrees east, that is, almost to Mauritius. Now this fact is not mentioned in the White Paper. Instead it hints that in times of crisis Australia would consider meeting its commitments under Radford-Collins only after it had met priority requirements in our own area. Nevertheless, the Government has admitted to having international obligations in the Indian Ocean. If one draws together these separate threads, the White paper can be made to yield some of the basic components of the case for a Western fleet. The point to bear in mind, however, is that they find no integrated expression in the White Paper. If somewhere in the mountains of Department of Defence bumf there is a fully matured strategic basis for an Indian Ocean fleet, it has not found its way into the White Paper. Perhaps it is a well kept secret. I suspect the reason for this silence is that if the White Paper had actually surveyed developments in the Indian Ocean, the document would have sunk the Government's strategic posture. If the White Paper had discussed the Indian Ocean it would have had to mention the rapid growth of the Indian Navy, its tremendous reach, its two aircraft carriers, together with a replacement which is on the way, supported by Soviet-built Kresta class cruisers and replenishment ships, as well as its bases in the Andaman Islands from which India can threaten the Malacca Straits. This has serious implications for our allies under the Five Power Defence Arrangement-Singapore and Malaysia, our neighbour Indonesia, and our chief trading partner, Japan. If the White Paper had discussed the question of the Indian Ocean it would have had to explain the use India intends to make, for example, of its Russian-built Bear F long range anti- submarine warfare aircraft. These aircraft have a range of 5,000 kilometres which would enable them to observe vessels travelling Indian Ocean routes with Australian trade, to direct Indian submarine attacks against these ships and to combat our own submarines from points relatively close to our western shores. As one would expect, Soviet arms bound for India are sometimes modified to suit special Indian requirements. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility then that India's Bears have been modified to fulfil an anti-shipping role, a development that would make a lot of sense. In this case the Bears could directly attack surface ships. The significance of India's Bears lies in the fact that they probably will be used in combination with India's growing submarine fleet. At the moment the Indian navy has eight diesel-electric submarines of the comparatively outdated Soviet Foxtrot class. However, the Indians have embarked on a major expansion and modernisation of their submarine force. They will add to the fleet six West German Type 1500 and six-or possibly more-Soviet Kilo class submarines. So, depending on the rate at which the Foxtrots are withdrawn from service, the Indians will have within a decade between 12 and 20 submarines, supported by maritime reconnaissance aircraft-quite a force. There has also been a suggestion that India wants a nuclear-powered submarine, possibly the Soviet Echo II, which is armed with either Shaddock or Sandbox anti-ship missiles. These missiles can be fired from a submerged vessel and be directed on to their targets by Bear D reconnaissance aircraft. Were India's Bear Fs modified to incorporate the capabilities of the Bear D-a development which would seem to be demanded by the acquisition of missile-firing nuclear submarines-India would have the capacity to attack in the West even Australia's coastal trade. Information about these developments has been on the public record for at least 12 months. They surely would be known to Australian military intelligence. Yet none of the questions posed by the growth of Indian naval power were discussed in the defence White Paper. Probably the reason for this has been domestic political rather than strategic or diplomatic. Consider this question: how could the Hawke Labor Government justify a strategy which eschews defence of the sea lanes and denies the need for carrier-based aircraft at the very time when a great regional military power is developing the capacity to project naval and naval air forces into Australian waters? I do not in any way want to be taken as suggesting that India is developing these forces to attack Australia. However, we should not turn a blind eye to these developments. We should foster good relations with India, an area with which I have been particularly concerned. I was a member of a delegation of this Parliament which visited India some time ago. Nor should anything said by me tonight be taken as being a reflection on Indonesia. I believe, as has been said by somebody in one of the maiden speeches, that it is very important to maintain and develop close relations with our neighbours. Nevertheless, at the very time when Australia has rejected a strategy of power projection and sea land defence-rejected in the defence White Paper-India has undertaken to develop forces capable of dominating our Indian Ocean lines of communication. The mere existence of this capability ought to be a warning to us, and ought not to be ignored, particularly in a document such as a defence White Paper. Australia has abolished its fleet air arm and now the RAN will have to hug the coast to be within range of RAAF air cover. This year the Indian aircraft carrier Vikrant will be joined by a second, Viraat, formerly HMS Hermes. There are plans to build a third carrier in India, a copy of Britain's latest HMS Ark Royal, as a replacement for `Vikrant'. The Indian Fleet Air Arm will field some 27 `Sea Harriers' and 66 helicopters, including those based on cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, of which 24 will be advanced Sea Kings armed with anti-shipping missiles in addition to their usual anti-submarine weapons. There will also be 62 other fixed-wing reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft. By any standard this is a formidable force. Then there is the rest of the Indian Navy. It will be able to boast three Soviet Kresta II cruisers which will be modified with an upgraded SAM area defence system; at least six Soviet Kashin II destroyers; and an Anglo-Soviet mix of 23 frigates. Keeping in mind the large submarine force already mentioned, it is clear that the Indian Navy is being designed to do far more than to counter the much smaller Pakistani Navy, whose offensive force consists of six submarines. What the Indians intend to do with this fleet is a matter more of educated guesswork than of certainty. Intelligent people that they are, the Indians play their cards close to the chest. Apart from maintaining-quite correctly-that India must be able to defend her Indian Ocean lines of communication if she is to develop as a major industrial and trading nation, India has given few hints about how its Navy serves national defence and foreign policy objectives. Nevertheless, I believe that it is possible to sketch the outlines of the new role which India could be preparing to play in world affairs. Given India's huge army powerful air force and its apparent preoccupations with Pakistan and China, one might be tempted to think of India as primarily a land power. The fact that the Indian Navy was, until recently, the forgotten service might have lent some credence to this view. However, India has a huge coastline and the sea offers her both dangers and opportunities-the opportunities for the expression of power and the expansion of influence denied her on the borders with Pakistan and China. India's problem is that she is hemmed in by her land borders. For a start, there are the Himalayas which pose a barrier to expansion in some ways more formidable than an ocean. In any case, India faces China in that area. On one scenario advanced with which I do not concur, India may wish to flex her new and more sophisticated military muscle to get square with China for the defeat suffered in 1962 and the loss of uninhabited territory in the Aksai Chin. I emphasise that this and other scenarios are mentioned here because they have been advanced as possibilities. We should always bear in mind our responsibility to understand the legitimate concerns of India and maintain friendly relations and frank dialogue with that country. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —by leave-The Senate has passed a motion requiring the tabling of answers to questions relating to the Parliament House Construction Authority outstanding from the hearings of Senate Estimates Committee E during the last Parliament. The Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) has advised me that the Parliament House Construction Authority is now reviewing the questions and will provide answers to them as soon as possible. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following Papers were tabled: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 181. Barley Research Levy Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 183. Nursing Homes Assistance Act-Determinations made by the Minister under paragraph 13 (1A), dated 3 June 1987 and 28 June 1987. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 180. Wheat Tax Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 182.