Friday, 30 September 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 9 a.m. and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and senators in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 Pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them, for cost saving reasons only, on a special list requiring authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and; that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senators in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 139 citizens), Calvert (from 201 citizens) and Panizza (from 407 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X-rated video material (and its R-rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Aulich (from 230 citizens), Devlin (from 239 citizens), Newman (from 199 citizens), Reid (from 77 citizens) and Walters (from 168 citizens). The petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia being residents of South Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully request to maintain and expand public funding for Community Based Child Care Services in Australia, and express total opposition to the withdrawal of the operational subsidy to any user, because it will have a deleterious effect on children's services in South Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the Instigation of: 1. Urgent discussions with State Governments, bodies representing children's services and the A.C.T.U. 2. That such discussions examine regulations for the quality assurance of children's services. 3. That such discussion be mindful of the need to retain quality children's services and trained personnel to work in children's services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crowley (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 100 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The people of the North Canberra Community would like to have a Community Skateboard ramp built in the old North Canberra area. There are keen Skateboarders in the area and at present they have to catch 4 buses to use the Woden facility which is expensive, time consuming, and too dangerous a trip for the younger children. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 306 citizens). To the Honourable President of the Senate and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are gravely concerned at the Government's proposal to reduce significantly the pension and access to fringe benefits of persons who in good faith bought market linked insurance bonds, friendly society bonds, approved deposit funds, deferred annuities, and unit trusts to protect their savings. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, amend the proposed legislation to ensure that it will not apply retrospectively and that provision be made to protect savings against inflation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Calvert (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia expresses their concern about the situation in Romania, where, after decades of repression and human rights abuses, the bulldozing of 7-8000 villages is imminent. The wilful destruction of hundreds of thousands of homes, thousands of churches, historic monuments and cemeteries while unprecedented will erase also the cultural heritage of Romania's sizable minorities, among them that of approximately 2.5 million Hungarians from their erstwhile homeland. Your petitioners humbly request that the Senate shall issue a strong note of protest to the Romanian Government and shall urge the Australian Government to exert utmost pressure on the Romanian Government to abandon the totalitarian plan and to adhere to the international agreements and covenants of which Romania is a fellow signatory. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. (Quorum formed) by Senator Jenkins (from 83 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given on the last day of sitting, I now withdraw business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for the disallowance of the pharmaceutical benefits information provision incentive payment rules made on 23 March 1988 under section 99aaa of the National Health Act 1953. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes- (a) the statements by a spokesman for the Reserve Bark as first reported in the Melbourne Herald of Thursday, 29 September 1988, that the Opposition's claims that the Federal Government was holding down interest rates until the Victorian election was over were certainly `pre-election tactics' but still accurate; (b) the further statement by the same Reserve Bank spokesman that the issue of home loan interest rates was a politically sensitive one and that the Federal Government was likely to further tighten monetary policy following the release of the balance of payments figure on Wednesday, 28 September 1988; (c) the further statement by the same Reserve Bank spokesman, reported in direct quotes, that `in the light of the trade deficit there is a good chance that interest rates could go up to slow down demand'; (d) that since the report in question was datelined Berlin, where the Treasurer, accompanied by the usual small number of Treasury and Reserve Bank officials, has been attending the Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the Reserve Bank spokesman in question can only have been one of the senior Reserve Bank officials in the Treasurer's party; (e) against that background, the sharp rise in money market interest rates which occurred even prior to the Victorian election and the Oxley Federal by-election; (f) that, on the eve of the Victorian election, it was already widely acknowledged in banking and other financial circles that these initial money market rises were bound to lead to rises in bank lending rates, including home loan rates, as soon as that election and the Oxley by-election were out of the way; (g) the growing acceptance of the view that, only weeks after its delivery to the Australian people, the Government's whole Budget 1988-89 strategy is already in ruins, and condemns the Government, and the Treasurer in particular, for the outrageous gamble with Australia's future which that Budget sought to perpetrate and the massive blow to confidence which its almost immediate failure is now bound to generate. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Soviet Union for using nuclear-powered satellites for spying purposes and condemns their callous and total disregard for the citizens of the earth with respect to the consequences of their action; and (b) notes with great concern that, in the week commencing 3 October 1988, for the second time in recent years, a Soviet nuclear-powered spy satellite will be out of control and will enter the earth's atmosphere spraying large pieces of radioactive machinery over innocent nations and their people, or more likely according to informed scientific opinion, forming a radioactive cloud 1000 km by 40 km in the atmosphere. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following Bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal Part IV of the Navigation Act 1912, so as to remove the obligation for ships to obtain a licence or a permit to engage in the coasting trade, and to repeal other sections of the Act which relate only to the coasting trade. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes Australians' total rejection of question No. 3 concerning local government in the 3 September 1988 referendum and further notes that, in Western Australia, this question was rejected by approximately 71 per cent of the population; (b) notes that the biggest defeat of this question in Western Australia was in the remote areas, namely in the Divisions of O'Connor (81.30 per cent) and Kalgoorlie (65.23 per cent). (c) notes that the areas mentioned are coincidentally the most affected by the Federal Government's 40 per cent cut in real terms in road funding. (d) requests that the Government returns road funding to the level necessary to keep the roads of these regions at an acceptable standard, especially considering the importance and considerable contribution by these areas towards Australia's export income, instead of spending funds on useless exercises such as the recent disastrous referendums; and (e) notes that the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) was responsible for leading this disastrous campaign and that she should do the honourable thing and at least offer to resign. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Australian Democrats, the nuclear disarmament groups and other pseudo peace groups for failing to censure the Soviet Union for their irresponsible use of nuclear-powered spy satellites and for the potentially lethal consequences of this inadequate Soviet technology when the satellites fail and re-enter the earth's atmosphere; and (b) notes that such action by the above parties is consistent with their anti-United States and pro-Soviet policies. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) commends the Federal Government for responding to community lobbying by maintaining, which is in part recognition of, the position of a full time Ambassador for Disarmament; (b) commends the continuing work for a chemical weapons ban as well as a comprehensive test ban treaty; (c) condemns the Government for failing to respond to public opinion, which is now running at 50 per cent against nuclear warship visits and only 24 per cent in favour; (d) condemns the Government for putting Australians and Australia at risk by continuing to allow nuclear weapons to come into our harbours thus making nuclear targets of the ports visited; and (e) condemns the current glorification of war machinery now taking place in Sydney Harbour. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —by leave-Yesterday during Question Time the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, following a dorothy dix question, raised certain matters that had been put in a personal explanation that I had made on 27 September. I would like to correct several matters that have arisen since Senator Walsh answered the question yesterday. First, I would like to draw the attention of the Senate to page 763 of the Hansard of 27 September where I quoted at the time from a document prepared by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock. The leading words of that statement, as recorded in Hansard, are: I am concerned with assumptions about wages . . . The key words are: `I am concerned with'. The words that I said but which have been rendered wrongly in the Hansard were: `On conservative assumptions'. It is clear that this arose because of the problems with the acoustics in the new Parliament House. Coming to the substance of the matter raised by the Minister for Finance yesterday, in answer to a question concerning my initial matter he referred to page 56 of the Budget Papers. He quoted figures showing rather favourable-for the Government-trends in what he described as household disposable income per capita. Of course, those figures which he quoted are a statistical abstraction and have nothing to do with the real world situation where an ordinary family is facing problems with its standards of living. The figure which he used, describing it as household disposable income, was taken from the calculation of the gross domestic income of the nation and includes, as an average right across the community, all the amounts of money that come to people from interest, dividends, rents, royalties and every other factor which the average family has absolutely no access to. As a consequence, it was of no relevance whatsoever in answering the point that I asserted on Tuesday, that is, that the household disposable income of a typical, real world family where there are two parents and two dependent children has in fact dropped in real terms by $56 per week since this Government came to power in 1983. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a statement which has been published on previous occasions. It sets down an analysis of the exact average weekly earnings for a family of two parents and two children and takes into account all the associated social security benefits. It has had the necessary deflators applied since 1983 and it quite clearly shows that when the Hawke Government was first elected in March 1983, real disposable income on a weekly basis was $486 and projected ahead in this financial year, to July 1989, when the tax cuts that were mentioned in the recent Budget come into force, it will be $430 a week, a drop of $56 a week. I also seek leave to incorporate the associated document. Leave granted. The document read as follows- REAL DISPOSABLE INCOME FOR A FAMILY ON AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS WITH A DEPENDENT SPOUSE AND TWO DEPENDENT CHILDREN Hawke First Elected March 1983 July 1989 (k) 1 Awe (Weekly) (a)... 370.3 564 2 Annual Income (b)... 19,307 29,407 3 Paye Tax Payable (c)... 4,414 7,764 4 Medicare Levy (d)... - 368 5 Gross Tax (3 + 4)... 4,414 8,132 6 Rebates - Dependent Spouse... 1,030 1,030 - Concessional Expenditure (e)... 170 - - Health Insurance (f)... 216 - 7 Net Tax Payable (5-6)... 2,998 7,102 8 Family Allowances (g)... 664 664 9 Health Insurance (h) - Medical... 250 - - Hospital... 400 557 10 Disposable Income (2 + 8 -9 -7) ... 16,323 22,412 11 CPI (i)... 64.4 100 12 Real Disposable Income (j) - Annual... 25,346 22,412 - Weekly... 486 430 * On conservative assumptions about wages and inflation in 1988-89 (see notes), these families need $56 per week to restore their real disposable incomes to the same level as March 1983. (a) Average weekly earnings for a full-time adult male. This is the conventional definition used for family tax analysis and is the same definition used exclusively in the Government's Draft White Paper on Reform of the Australian Taxation System. Source: ABS Cat No 6301.0 and assume 6 per cent per annum wages growth to July 1989. (b) AWE scaled up by a factor of 52.14. (c) Using 1 July income tax scales for latest period. (d) Calculated at 1.25% of gross taxable income. (e) Rebate of 30 cents in the dollar for every dollar in excess of $1,590 in March 1983 and $2,000 in December 1984. Rebate removed from 1985-86 financial year with exception of medical expenses in excess of $1,000. Assumes concessional expenditure of $2,157 in March 1983 and $2,560 in December 1984 based on figures from Table 1.18 of annual Australian Tax Office publication, Taxation Statistics. (f) Rebate of 30 cents in the dollar for payment of basic hospital and medical insurance premiums. (g) Family allowance of $22.80 per month for the first child and $32.55 per month for the second child. (h) Health insurance premiums for the provision of health cover. Assumes basic hospital and medical cover prior to Medicare and basic private hospital cover after Medicare. MBF rates used. (i) CPI for 8 capital cities rebased to June quarter 1989-100.0 (assumes 6 per cent growth in CPI over the year to the June quarter 1989). (j) Disposable income deflated by the CPI. These figures are in June quarter 1989 prices. (k) June quarter 1989 figures for AWE and the CPI. 1 July 1987 income tax scales used. Senator MESSNER —Finally, I would like to draw attention to the Minister's incorrect statement and the use of the wrong figures set out at page 56 of the Budget Papers. Even if he were to take another figure which is shown in that paper- Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The PRESIDENT —This has gone much further than a personal explanation. It is now becoming a debate of the policy and I ask the honourable senator to conclude. Senator MESSNER —I therefore conclude on the basis that the Minister has totally misrepresented the position of the Opposition. He is obviously a pathological dissembler and a person who is at the very least intemperate in his language in this place and has obnoxiously used incorrect information to misrepresent the position of the Opposition. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray)-by leave-agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, on Tuesday, 11 October 1988 the Senate meet at 2.30 p.m. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. I refer to the notice of motion just put forward by Senator MacGibbon, with which I concur completely, stating that the Soviet Union should be roundly condemned for using nuclear generators to power its satellites. I also want to make it quite clear that I did protest about that when it was first learned that the Cosmos 1900 was out of control. It is another example of nuclear technology out of control. I wrote a letter to the Soviet Union protesting in strong terms about the irresponsibility of putting the world's people and environment at risk by using nuclear generators in space. I also put out a public statement about that, as did other peace groups around the country. I think that needs to be clarified. I would also like to make some comments about the peace movement which has been roundly denigrated in this chamber in the last day or so. I am very proud to be part of that peace movement. I want to make a few remarks about the fact that it is not, as has been portrayed-- Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, I take a point of order. We were asked to give leave for a personal explanation. The honourable senator has now indicated that she is going into a long explanation. Senator VALLENTINE —No, she is not. The PRESIDENT —I was about to rule. The honourable senator asked for leave to make a personal explanation, which she did. She then said she was going to go on and make some comments about the peace movement. Was the honourable senator personally misrepresented? Senator VALLENTINE —Yes I have been, because I am part of that peace movement. Because of particular comments made in this chamber last night I believe I have been misrepresented and I think the peace movement has been unjustly criticised. I think it is important that I put the record straight on that matter. Senator Chaney —Mr President, speaking to the point of order: it is quite clear that the honourable senator cannot, under the guise of a personal explanation, clear up what she claims to be misrepresentations about the peace movement. I could stand up and claim to be personally misrepresented-just to illustrate the point-because I personally take the strongest objection to Senator Vallentine claiming to represent the peace movement, when I believe she represents the unilateral peace movement and I represent the multilateral peace movement. I think this is clearly an abuse of the procedure of a personal explanation. I ask you to strictly confine the honourable senator to a personal explanation which goes to a misrepresentation about her, not anybody else; otherwise Senate business will never be proceeded with. We have a large amount of legislation before us and I think we should be getting on with it. The PRESIDENT —Senator Vallentine, if you cannot give an instance of where you have been personally misrepresented I am going to have to rule you out of order. I cannot allow a general debate on the peace movement. Senator VALLENTINE —No, I do not intend to do that but I have just been personally misrepresented right now by Senator Chaney calling me a representative of the unilateral peace movement. I think it is important that I clear that up. I have just been misrepresented yet again. Senator Chaney keeps doing it. I represent a very broadly based peace movement but I am not `the' representative of that peace movement. Senator Robert Ray —Mr President, on a point of order: we give permission for people to make personal explanations when they have been grievously misrepresented but there is also another device called the adjournment debate. The adjournment debate is not much use to people who always get on the 10 to four plane and go home on a Friday; I realise that. But that is when honourable senators can have half an hour to expand their views. Regrettably, if the honourable senator does that today I will have to miss it, but that is the time to do it. The PRESIDENT —Senator Vallentine, you are not giving an example of where you have been personally misrepresented; therefore, I am ruling you out of order. Senator VALLENTINE —I was misrepresented in the Senate chamber last night when comments were made about a group of `ratbags' who were making protests in Albany against USS Brewton a couple of weeks ago. That was a personal misrepresentation by Senator Crichton-Browne. I think it is most important that people realise that the peace movement comprises people from many walks of life who do support multilateral disarmament. I refuse to be mislabelled as a unilateralist by Senator Chaney and to be called a ratbag by Senator Crichton-Browne. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Vallentine, you are out of order. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. Just a few moments ago it was claimed by Senator Vallentine that I had called everybody in the peace movement ratbags. That is quite untrue. I was quite specific yesterday as to whom I referred. I referred to a group of protesters who, because of the way they conducted themselves in Albany, Western Australia, just a couple of weeks ago, deserved that description. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed from 29 September. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Zakharov) —The Committee is considering the Industrial Relations Bill as a whole and Australian Democrat amendments Nos 3 and 4 moved together, by leave, by Senator McLean. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(9.24) —Last evening I moved the first two of seven Australian Democrat amendments. I made the point that our amendments have two specific foci, one being the clauses of amalgamation and the formula for amalgamation and the second being processes of collegiate ballots for office-bearers within unions. These two amendments which are now before the Chair seek to revise the formula for amalgamations downwards from a requirement of 3,000 members to 1,000 in the case of employee organisations. I said last evening that the Australian Democrats saw these amendments as constructive and responsible in that we have been approached by a considerable number of small unions who argue that they are unable to find, and will remain unable to find even within the three-year period allowed for adjustment, compatible unions with which to amalgamate successfully. Some indicated that they had in fact pursued the course of amalgamation in recent years only to find that it did not service their needs. They have withdrawn, only to find that this Bill proposes that they be forced into amalgamations which have proven unsuccessful. We draw attention to the fact that our revised suggested figure of 1,000 as the minimum required limit for employer and employee organisations is simply in line with the recommendations of the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, which proposed a minimum membership of 1,000 for both employer and employee organisations. This figure will provide an opportunity to meet the needs of smaller unions. This is the figure which the Government in the 1987 Industrial Relations Bill found acceptable and which at that time was acceptable to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). We are not convinced that in the interim 15 months there has arisen a need for the Government or the ACTU to argue the non-acceptability of 1,000. The only argument advanced to us by the outgoing Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, was that the credibility of amalgamations required a strong commitment to the formula and that, without this strong commitment, there would be a lack of identification to the process of amalgamations. We do not accept that. I cited last night the fact that the ACTU, in its support of the two documents Future Strategies for the Trade Union Movement and Australia Reconstructed, had endorsed the process of amalgamation. (Quorum formed) I make the point that the amalgamations figure of 3,000 constitutes an increase of 200 per cent on the figure which was acceptable to the Government and to the Australian Council of Trade Unions 15 months ago. This Australian Democrats amendment simply asks the Government to acknowledge that the figure of 1,000 was acceptable to it in its 1987 Bill and acceptable to the ACTU. It was recommended by Hancock, and it is a figure which accommodates the need of the smaller unions and adopts a progressive approach to amalgamation rather than an unseemly accelerated one. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.31) —In order to expedite the debate, I am happy for the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) to respond at the one time to the comments of both the Australian Democrats and the Opposition on this matter. We have had a lengthy debate on the principles that should underlie trade union amalgamations, trade union structure and so on. It is quite clear that the Opposition's position is that we require a greater degree of flexibility. We are opposed to numerical limits, and our public policy objective is to achieve structures which will encourage single negotiating units within enterprises. In other words, we want to get away from the multiplicity of unions within an enterprise but we do not see size as the determinant of that. I do not intend to canvass the arguments that we have already canvassed very extensively in the Committee with respect to the Opposition's own amendments, which are of a different nature to those put forward by the Australian Democrats. However, the Australian Democrats amendment somewhat reduces the restriction being imposed by the Government. Clearly, it is more in line with the principles we are espousing to have a lower limit rather than a higher limit. We would prefer no limit at all, with the associated changes to the objects of the Act and the other provisions that I went into in great detail. The Opposition will support the Democrats amendment to this clause. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.33) -The Government does not accept the Australian Democrats amendments. Of 143 federally registered unions, 38 have fewer than 1,000 members and in total they represent about 15,000 members, or less than 0.5 per cent of total Federal union membership. About 68 have fewer than 3,000 members, representing about 70,000 members or less than 2.7 per cent of total Federal union membership. So when we are debating whether big is beautiful or small is beautiful in connection with the size of unions, I think it is important to get in context what we are talking about-a very small proportion of the total Federal union membership. The Government believes that to reduce the minimum number for membership now, two years later than provided for in the earlier Bill, from 3,000 to 1,000 would have less effect in encouraging union restructuring because of the much smaller number of unions which would be affected. For that reason, amongst others, the amendment does not find favour with the Government. All of this question of efficiency and community interest turns on the provision in the legislation which gives a union aggrieved by the number, whether it be 1,000 or 3,000, the entitlement to show cause before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. There is ample opportunity provided in the legislation for a union to show that such is the degree of community interest and specialisation, such are the inadequacies of other trade unions to cover the particular calling in question, that the Commission should allow the union to remain with its present small registered membership. We have been through the principles behind these matters before, and I indicate that the Government will not support the amendments. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.35) —I support this amendment as being better than the provision in the Industrial Relations Bill. The Bill provides for unions with fewer than 3,000 members to be forced out of existence, in effect. This will affect about 100,000 workers. It means that if the Bill stands as it is, 100,000 workers will be forced out of their unions into other organisations, probably the majority of them against their will. I stand here having been a member of a union for almost longer than I can remember. After a period, if not in the first few years, one develops a loyalty to one's particular organisation. I stand here on behalf of those 100,000 trade union members in Australia who will be forced out of their unions into others, to express the feelings they may experience as a result of this legislation. For many of them, particularly those in the skilled area who are in small craft unions, it will be a wrench. Some of those unions have a long history. They go back many years. They are acting somewhat as a close knit family to protect their professions and their crafts and to advance their interests. Over the years a number of arguments against small unions have been advanced. My view is that we should leave it to the workers to decide whether they want to form a particular union. If they do, they should go through the hoops with the Industrial Registrar to see whether their union's constitution is in accordance with the legislation. If it is not, the union will be refused registration. I have heard all the arguments, mainly on demarcation issues, over many years. I wish Senator Chaney was Minister for Industrial Relations-- Senator Button —I do not accept that for a moment and I will not support it. Senator HARRADINE —Just wait for it. I wish Senator Chaney had been Minister for Industrial Relations 10 years ago. (Quorum formed) I was saying that under the provisions of the Bill about 100,000 workers will be forced out of their unions into other unions. Many of them may be forced out against their wishes. Before the quorum was called I was about to say that I wish Senator Chaney had been the Minister for Industrial Relations 10 or 15 years ago because some Liberal-National Party coalition Ministers for industrial relations blamed the existence of small unions for a problem in demarcation disputes. Everybody in this chamber will remember people saying, `There should be fewer unions because of all the demarcation disputes'. Senator Chaney came into the area two years ago and looked at the facts. Last night he put the facts on the table as was done by me in this chamber some time ago during the term of Liberal-National Party coalition Government. The facts are that small unions do not contribute significantly to demarcation problems. The facts, as he stated them, are correct. Demarcation disputes occur within and between the larger unions. I do not think that Senator Chaney mentioned disputes within unions. Let me remind the chamber that one of the biggest, one of the longest and one of the most costly demarcation disputes in this country was an intra-union dispute between a boilermaker and a fitter in a newly amalgamated union. That is a matter of record. It is a matter of history. I support the amendments moved by Senator McLean in that they are at least a better option than that contained in the Bill. I will come back to the point that I frequently made: it is not a question of union structure that will determine industrial relations outcomes. The issue is whether the parties to the system desire to see that system work and desire to see it work with cooperation with other workers in other unions throughout Australia. One of the big problems, I fear, that may arise out of the current push for amalgamation is that we will have a few very large conglomerate unions which will be so powerful, so self-sufficient, that they will not need to take notice of the peak councils, the Australian Council of Trade Unions or the State trades and labour councils. Situations may arise as they have arisen in other countries, notably in America. One or two very large unions called the tune without regard to what their workers wanted. That occurred two decades ago. I do not think that that would be a good thing for Australia. But maybe the horse has bolted. The atmosphere has developed over 20 years-particularly over the last five years-that there is a need for amalgamation for amalgamation's sake. That is reflected to some extent in the legislation but to a very large extent in what is going on outside in the various councils of employer and employee organisations. Senator BURNS(Queensland)(9.45) —I do not question the reasons for the Australian Democrats moving their amendments. On this issue, obviously the bottom line has to be the interests of the people who are represented-that is, the members of unions. It is quite ludicrous to suggest that any interest and loyalty that they may have to their calling or to the organisations they belong to would disappear as a result of amalgamation. A lot depends on the way in which an amalgamated union would be structured. Consideration would need to be given to the opportunity for autonomy of groups within a union to make decisions about their particular area of influence and day to day work. By amalgamating, a union's ability would be enhanced by being able to have access to a much better and efficient research area. Amalgamation would create much better education opportunities for members and more facilities to finance the activities of the members of a small union. Let me give an example which is very clear and states the facts. Some years ago the shipwrights union of some 2,000 members amalgamated with the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union (AMWU). The leadership of the then Metal Workers Union suggested that some people who were shipwrights on board ships would be better suited if they become members of a maritime union. They suggested that the shipwrights hold a ballot amongst themselves. The shipwrights did so and decided to go to a maritime union. Everyone was happy with that situation. That left over a very small number, probably fewer than 1,500 shipwrights, in a union of some 150,000 members. George Campbell was given a guarantee that he would be one of the assistant national secretaries of the AMWU. He has shown tremendous ability in that union and is now the National Secretary. Yet, in terms of a trade and a special interest, he represents a very small number of the total members of that union. We have been told that the AMWU has had a long running demarcation dispute. From my personal experience in Queensland over some 20 years, and certainly some 16 years in the Metal Workers Union, I can say that we always resolve demarcation disputes internally and that our members accept and follow the decisions that are made. I would like to emphasise the recently changed attitude which reinforces that position. The AMWU was probably one of the first unions to negotiate membership for multi-skilled tradesmen in enterprises in which maintenance is carried out. This allowed demarcation lines to be faded out to some extent, to the benefit of employers and obviously to the benefit of the tradesmen. Senator Chaney —I take a point of order. Whilst this is a very interesting contribution, it seems to me that it is not on the matter we are currently debating. In light of the time problem that we have, I simply ask the honourable senator to restrict himself to the amendment before the Chair. If he did, I think it would help us all. Senator BURNS —I was about to wind up anyhow. I just want to say that that is the attitude of the unions and amalgamated unions will look after that smaller group of unions. They have the resources and the will to do so and that is their intention. The bottom line is that those unions with small resources that might be headed by people who want to be big fish in a little pool are better off amalgamating. As has already been said by Senator McLean, some of those amalgamations will occur anyhow by way of people getting together and seeing that their interests are served. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(9.51) —In response to the observations by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) about the catch not being big enough if the amalgamation net is not enlarged by the revised formula to 3,000, I say that the statistics have not changed in the last 15 months. The proportions of the membership that were to be caught by the formula have not changed. After all, 1,000 was acceptable to the Government 15 months ago and it should be acceptable now. From my discussions with the former Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, the present Minister, Mr Peter Morris, and Mr Simon Crean very recently, I think, frankly, that the figure is acceptable to the Government. The reality is that 15 months ago, just before we went to the polls, this formula was so controversial that the Government chose to pull the Bill off and the Opposition threatened to spend $9m to bury it and to throw out the Government. Here we have the Opposition actually prepared to accept precisely the same formula that was inherent in the Bill in 1987 and the Government is saying that that is no longer acceptable when clearly it is. It is in the best interests of small unions to have this formula accepted. The process of amalgamation will proceed; the needs of the unions are serviced; the Opposition has come on side; all the threat and distortion have gone so let us just proceed. This is a very responsible formula. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.53) —Very quickly I wish to correct a couple of inaccuracies in Senator McLean's remarks. He really should not try to discourage us from supporting his amendment. The two points that I wish to correct are these: I think it may have been an unintended slip, but Senator McLean said that the Opposition was prepared to spend $9m to defeat the 1987 Bill. I want to make it quite clear that we did not have $9m, and if $9m was to be spent it may have been that the united employers who were opposed to the Bill intended to have a large campaign. I also make the point that the Bill that was withdrawn in 1987 was withdrawn not just because of very strong objections from the Opposition, but much more because of the cutting off of the common law injunction and the obstruction of access to section 45d. That was certainly what produced employer unanimity on the Bill-something that we do not see very often. I think that there has been a slight confusion there which I just wish to clear up. The second point is perhaps more important. Senator McLean has suggested that the Opposition is now in agreement with the Australian Democrats on this 1,000 limit. That is not so. The Opposition's position has been put out extensively in this debate. We are not in favour of numerical limits, we are in favour of a quite different approach to trade union structure. It is an approach that is aimed squarely at getting single bargaining units within enterprises. Again, I do not want to go back over the argument, but we are supporting the Australian Democrats because their 1,000 limit is a little closer to our position than the Government's 3,000 limit. I just wish to make that clear so that there is no misunderstanding here or anywhere else. Question put: That the amendments (Senator McLean's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter McLean, P. A.Bishop, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Calvert, P. H. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Puplick, C. J. G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sanders, N. K.Durack, P. D. Sheil, G.Hamer, D. J. Short, J. R.Harradine, B. Stone, J. O.Hill, R. M. Tambling, G. E. J.Jenkins, J. A. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vanstone, A. E.McGauran, J. J. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Gietzelt, A. T.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. C. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Baume, Michael Bolkus, N.Walters, M. S. Richardson, G. F.Lewis, A. W. R. Devlin, A. R.Reid, M. E. Crowley, R. A.Archer, B. R. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.01) —by leave-I move: (14) Pages 54 and 55, Clause 122, line 39 (page 54) to line 16 (page 55), leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Commission not to give preference to members of organisations ``122. The Commission shall not, in any award or order, direct that preference be given, in relation to matters relating to employment, to particular organisations or members of organisations.''. (33) Pages 131 to 133, clause 266, line 35 (page 131) to line 6 (page 133), leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Rights to join or not to join an organisation ``266. A person who is eligible to join an organisation shall not be placed under any pressure to join, or not to join, that organisation.''. (36) Page 161, 319 subclauses (1), (2) and (3), lines 2 to 35, leave out ``who is a conscientious objector'' (wherever occurring). (37) Page 161, subparagraph 319 (3) (a) (ii), line 27, leave out ``and '', insert ``who''. (38) Page 161, subparagraph 319 (3) (b) (ii), line 35, leave out ``and '', insert ``who''. (39) Page 162, subclause 319 (8) lines 26 to 31, leave out the subclause. These amendments deal with preference to unionists, the right not to join a trade union and conscientious objection. The first amendment, amendment 14, prevents the Commission from granting preference to members of organisations. Since 1904 the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has empowered the arbitral tribunal to include in awards clauses giving preference to unionists. The specific objective of that is to increase the strength of unions in their dealings with employers, particularly in conflicts with employers. Preference in practice, however, usually amounts to compulsory unionism, although technically the High Court of Australia has not permitted the Commission to award compulsory unionism as such. It is this fact which leads the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others to say that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in this country. In fact, as is well known to anybody who is in industrial relations or engaged in industry in this country, there are many circumstances where to get a job one is required to have a union ticket. To suggest, therefore, that there is not compulsory unionism is sophistry. There is certainly de facto compulsory unionism. Preference clauses can require employers to give preference to union members when it comes to engagement, promotion, training or retention of employees. Again, it is not simply an Opposition position that we believe that this should be abolished. The Confederation of Australian Industry made a series of comments on this legislation. It said on 26 August 1988 that it `strongly supports Opposition amendments which will remove the Commission's power to award preference in employment to union members'. Amendments 33 and 36 to 39 deal with the right to join or not to join an organisation. The amendments delete the conscientious objector clauses and establish the right to join or not to join an organisation. They provide the same degree of protection to all employees who choose not to belong to an organisation as is currently enjoyed by the holder of a certificate of conscientious objection. In other words we will have an established framework within the Act which provides for protection for that very small number of individuals who are able to be classified as conscientious objectors. The approach adopted by the Opposition is simply to extend the same rights, the same legislative protection, to those who are not necessarily, in a technical sense, conscientious objectors but who simply wish to exercise their freedom not to join a union. The effect of the amendments is to prohibit an employer from dismissing or discriminating in any way against an employee because that employee is not a member of a union. Normally an employer would refuse to employ a person because that person was not a member of a union. Unions are prohibited from putting pressure on employers to discriminate against non-unionists by industrial action or otherwise. An offence against those provisions will be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 for the first day on which the action constituting the offence takes place, plus $500 for each subsequent day on which the action continues. The Opposition's view is that there are two facets to our opposition to the notion of compulsory unionism in Australia. The first facet is not an economic one: it is a matter of civil liberties, the basic rights and liberties of Australians. We believe that those rights are infringed when people are conscripted into trade unions. It is interesting that that is a view which has the broad support of the Australian people. The Opposition is not asserting some minority view in putting this forward. The Business Council of Australia commissioned a poll and the finding of that poll in 1987 on the question `Do you think membership of trade unions should be voluntary or compulsory?' was that less than 14 per cent of Australians supported compulsory unionism. Senator Button —It is like all polls. It depends what it means. Senator CHANEY —One can argue endlessly about polls. As a great Prime Minister once said, the only poll that counts is the election. I think that it would be consistent with all the surveys done by the Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems which showed a concern about trade union power and so on. There has been a consistent series of outcomes in surveys of public opinion showing that people have reservations about abuse of trade union power and things such as compulsory membership of trade unions. Whatever statistical error might be involved in any poll, a less than 14 per cent finding in favour of compulsory trade unionism suggests that the Australian norm is to regard trade unionism as a matter of choice on the part of the individuals concerned. It is quite important to note that in most countries with which we would wish to compare ourselves it is the norm to give protection against any coercion to join a trade union. The trade unions are always telling us that we should look to the countries of Europe as examples of enlightened trade unionism and industrial relations. The document Australia Reconstructed is based on a visit to Europe by trade unionists and officials. They came back with all sorts of lessons which can be learnt from Europe in this field. I remind the Committee that Austria, France, West Germany, Italy and Spain have constitutional guarantees concerning the right not to join a trade union. In other countries such as Switzerland and Belgium the closed shop is forbidden by law. In Britain industrial action to impose a closed shop is unlawful, as is dismissal for non-membership of a trade union. Many of the States of the United States of America have passed laws outlawing the closed shop. In Norway and Sweden-they are countries which seem to be very much admired by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)-we find that the closed shop, while not technically illegal, is very rare, and that is because the peak employer bodies of both countries forbid their members to enter into such arrangements. These matters are of significance. It is only because the Government is very much beholden to the ACTU that it is embracing an approach to trade union membership which is offensive to the majority of the Australian people. This issue has been around for a long time. I said that the principle of preferences had been around since 1904. In the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives in May this year, Peter Shack, a member of the Liberal Party in that chamber, quoted Sir John Quick's comments on the original Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. Let me repeat that quote: The only justification for the Bill is that, although it interferes with freedom, it does so with the object of securing the greatest good to the greatest number . . . if we want a scheme which will work in a satisfactory manner we must make the necessary provision, even though it may interfere with individual rights and interests. That is the sort of justification which has been put forward by the people who have supported compulsory unionism or the effective imposition of compulsory unionism. The Opposition rejects that proposition because we believe that it is simply untrue that compulsory trade unionism is necessary for the effective operation of the industrial relations system. I made the point yesterday that we want trade unions to have to earn their membership in the same way as other organisations have to earn their membership-by providing adequate and, indeed, superior services to their members. On the purely economic front, we express the view that flexibility will greatly advantage Australia and the Australian economy. We believe that it would be of great advantage to the smooth operation of most enterprises if we did not have the closed shop, if we did not have compulsory unionism. Again, we have had an indication in advance from the Australian Democrats that they will not support this amendment. The fact is that the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats in this place are prepared to impose upon members of the Australian work force the requirement that they have to join a trade union, even though it is quite clear that that is not the wish of the work force. As I said before, we hear a lot about rights and freedoms in this place, but it seems to me that this is one of the fundamental rights and freedoms which should be given far greater credence than it is in this country. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.13) —On this matter Senator Chaney has advanced quite a powerful argument; almost a plausible argument. Senator Crichton-Browne —How pat- ronising. Senator BUTTON —I said it was almost plausible. There is some appeal about a lot of the philosophical assumptions underlying the comments which he made, but it is very much an abstract matter and, in the view of the Government, it does not represent a sensible or practical balance of the interests of individuals and the community's interests in a workable and fair industrial relations system. Senator Chaney —Why is it fair in all those European countries? Senator BUTTON —I was about to make a point which again is relevant to the framework of the legislation. I accused the honourable senator yesterday-not in any pejorative sense-of using this Bill as a vehicle for advancing an alternative view of an industrial relations system and how it might operate. I regard that as quite legitimate and quite sensible because people in the wider community are not so much interested in the details of Bills but in the arguments which are advanced in concept terms in the course of debate. The first point I have to make is that these amendments do not sit, in legislative terms, with the rest of the legislation. If the Opposition wanted to establish a system like this-if it ever got into government-clearly it would have to begin again in terms of drafting legislation because it does not sit with the underlying assumptions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which are based on the organisations of representative employers and employees. We think that the Opposition's real objective is the promotion of non-unionism as distinct from what might be said to be the assumptions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which are the promotion of unionism on one side and organisations of employers on the other. Senator Crichton-Browne —We are not promoting anything except freedom of choice. Senator BUTTON —I am saying that it all depends on how it is dressed up. If Senator Crichton-Browne wants to dress it up in that comforting jargon, from his point of view he is entitled to do so, but I challenge that. The Opposition is really proposing a system of weak and fragmented enterprise bargaining units to take the place of existing unions. That is clear not only from these amendments but from a number of amendments which have been moved in the course of this debate. The essential thrust of the Opposition's amendments is to break down union security arrangements and to encourage those who accept the benefits won by unions but are not prepared to contribute to the process or cost of obtaining those benefits. It would further this by its policy-not reflected in these amendments-of voluntary agreements under which weak groups of workers, or, indeed, weak groups of employers, would be open to exploitation. The so-called voluntary unionism provisions are really a recycling of a go at this area that the Liberal Party had in government in 1982-the so-called Viner Bill. In looking at that Bill, the majority of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations said: The proposed legislation would not be conducive to industrial peace and would further unsettle the industrial relations climate. I do not rely on those words. Senator Chaney is quite entitled to say, `We want to unsettle the industrial relations climate; it is too settled altogether'. The point is that these types of provisions have been considered by this chamber before and have been looked at and rejected by a Senate committee. In contrast to the position of the Opposition, I can only say that the Government encourages representative organisations of employers and employees, as does the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It believes that members of both sets of organisations should take an active part in the affairs and management of those organisations. It does not think that people should be forced to join organisations by illegal or improper means. A number of clauses deal with these matters: clause 189 deals with genuine association; clause 122 deals with preference to be capable of being awarded by the independent Industrial Relations Commission, subject to very specific criteria; there is protection against employment discrimination; a new clause in the Bill provides new protections for employers who belong to organisations of employers against industrial action based on membership; there is an improved conscientious objection process; a more effective provision prohibiting discrimination against independent contractors; and greater protection for unionists who fail to join in industrial action by prohibiting employment discrimination by their union. In the Government's view these steps represent a moderate and sensible move forward in the current evolution of the industrial relations system in this country. Throughout this debate we have been arguing about the same essential philosophical differences, and the same philosophical differences arise here. It is because of that and because of the specific nature of the amendments in the context of the conciliation and arbitration legislation that the Government will not accept them. (Quorum formed) Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(10.23) —I wish to support the amendments that have been moved by Senator Chaney in relation to preference to unionists and the right not to join a union because of the importance of freedom of association. Freedom of association has both a positive and a negative aspect. On the one hand it involves the right to belong to an organisation, in particular a trade union; on the other it involves the right not to belong. This latter right which we believe is so important has never been recognised by the old Conciliation and Arbitration Act and nor is it recognised in this legislation. It is for this reason that the Opposition has moved this series of amendments. The right to join or not to join a union should be a basic right under democratic principles. Indeed, that right is recognised as such by the great majority of Western countries where it is recognised in law. In the great majority of Western countries there is legal protection for the right not to belong to a trade union. Yet at the same time many of these countries are widely recognised as having industrial relations systems that have produced better results for their people than ours has for Australia. For example, Austria, France, West Germany, Italy and Spain all have constitutional guarantees concerning the right not to join a trade union. In other countries, such as Switzerland and Belgium, the closed shop as we know it is forbidden by law. In Britain, industrial action to impose a closed shop is unlawful, as is dismissal for non-membership of a trade union. Many of the states of the United States of America have passed laws outlawing the closed shop. If those examples are not sufficient to reinforce the validity of these amendments which Senator Chaney has moved and to persuade the Government to accept them, even in Norway and Sweden-countries lauded by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in its Australia Reconstructed manifesto-the closed shop, although not technically illegal, is a very rare situation. This is because the peak employer bodies of both countries forbid their members to enter into such closed shop arrangements. The general view that freedom of association also implies the freedom to dissociate was well put by Irish Appeal Judge Kingsmill Moore in his 1961 verdict on the case Education Co. of Ireland Ltd v. Fitzpatrick, He stated: I think a guarantee of a right to form associations and unions is only intelligible where there is an implicit right to abstain from joining such associations or unions, or, to put it another way, to associate and unite with those who do not join such unions. Thus protection of the right not to join a union is the norm throughout the civilised world, and Australia's acceptance of the closed shop places it firmly amongst a small minority. Furthermore, it is also clear that the absence of compulsory unionism is compatible with high degrees of unionisation. It is, therefore, not a question of being anti-union on the part of the Opposition. We in the coalition support the individual's right to belong to a union as strongly as we support this very important right not to belong, but we believe that the law should protect both rights equally. The law in Australia does not protect those rights equally because although there is no legislation enforcing compulsory union membership, preference clauses, as are provided in the existing Act and as are retained in this new legislation, assist union pressure to make closed shops and compulsory unionism a practical reality in many industries in this country. Preference clauses may compel employers to favour union members in such things as engagement, promotion, retention, training and the taking of leave. They place non-union members at such a great disadvantage that the practical effect of those clauses is to make trade union membership virtually mandatory. Of course, this is reinforced in clause 122 of this legislation. Subclause (1) states: The Commission may, by an award, or by an order made on the application or an organisation or person bound by award, direct that preference shall be given, in relation to particular matters, in such manner and subject to such conditions as are specified in the award or order, to particular organisations . . . Our amendment will have the effect of changing clause 122 to read: The Commission shall not, in any award or order, direct that preference be given, in relation to matters relating to employment, to particular organisations or members of organisations. This will prevent the Commission from granting preference to members of organisations. As is obvious from what I have said earlier, since 1904 the old Conciliation and Arbitration Act has empowered the arbitral tribunal to include in awards clauses giving preference to unionists. This has continued in this Industrial Relations Bill through clause 122. The Confederation of Australian Industry in August this year in a press statement indicated that it strongly supported the Opposition amendments which will remove the power of the Industrial Relations Commission to award preference in employment to union members. The other amendments which Senator Chaney has moved-namely amendments (33) and (36) to (39)-deal also with the right to join or not to join an organisation. These are amendments to clauses 266 and 319 of the Bill and they delete the conscientious objector clauses and establish the right to join or not to join an organisation. In other words, it will no longer be necessary for someone to establish the requirement of conscientious objection as a means of avoiding membership of a trade union. It will be open to all employees to have that right and to be able to exercise that right. Our amendments provide the same degree of protection to all employees who choose not to belong to an organisation as is currently enjoyed by someone who is able to obtain a certificate of conscientious objection. Our amendments will prohibit an employer from dismissing or discriminating in any way against an employee because that employee is not a member of a union; nor may an employer refuse to employ a person because that person is not a member of a union. Under this amendment, unions will be prohibited from putting pressure on employers to discriminate against non-unionists by industrial action or otherwise. An offence under the provisions which our amendment will introduce will be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 for the first day on which the action constituting the offence takes place, plus $500 for each subsequent day on which the action continues. We believe that it is important that employees have that right in law not to join a union and that that is clearly established. The Government has stated on many occasions that there is no such thing as compulsory unionism in this country. I believe that the remarks of Senator Chaney earlier and the points which I have so far made show that that claim is a total fallacy. One needs only to look at the building industry, where frequently we see signs up stating, `No ticket, no work', which confirms the generally held view in the community that we have de facto compulsory unionism in this country. So it is important that we enshrine within this legislation the capacity for the right not to join a union to be absolutely protected. While a closed shop cannot be formally ordered by the Commission under existing legislation, it would be totally legal under the new legislation. So it means that there are circumstances where trade union membership will be a condition of employment. While such arrangements operate with the acquiescence of employers, this acquiescence is usually obtained because they are threatened with industrial action if they do not cooperate in preserving a closed shop. Very few employers choose, without the threat of industrial pressure, to make trade union membership a condition of employment. The Opposition very clearly believes that the decision on whether to join or not join a trade union should be one for individual employees alone to make. We totally reject the paternalistic attitude implicit in the current provisions dealing with the right not to join a trade union. There should be no need to show conscientious objection to trade union membership. The extreme difficulty of obtaining a certificate of conscientious objection is revealed by the very low number of certificates granted each year, despite a strong objection from a large number of employees to compulsory unionism. Applicants are put through an extremely difficult test, putting the onus on them to show possession of a deeply held belief against being a member of any association of employees. Mere membership of a union in the past is usually enough to dismiss an application out of hand. Moreover, it is not enough to show conscientious objection to joining a particular trade union even if that union has policies which are deeply abhorrent to the individual. The objection must be to joining any union. Compulsory unionism clearly interferes with the freedom of the individual. The only defence for compulsory unionism is that the rights of the individual should be subjected to the interests of trade unions in the public interest. I refer to the quote which Senator Chaney mentioned in moving this amendment. He quoted what Sir John Quick had to say in the debate on the original Conciliation and Arbitration Bill in 1904. He said that the only justification for that Bill was that, although it interfered with freedom, it did so with the object of securing the greatest good for the greatest number. But he went on to say that it was simply untrue that compulsory unionism was necessary-- Senator Chaney —No-Peter Shack went on to say. Senator CHAPMAN —I am sorry-Peter Shack was the original user of this quotation. In referring to the quote of Sir John Quick, he went on to say that it was untrue that compulsory unionism was necessary for the effective operation of the industrial relations system. Of course, that is the strong position of the coalition in relation to these clauses and that is why we have moved these amendments. That view is obviously shared in the community at large. In a recent survey conducted by the Business Council of Australia, this question was asked: Do you think membership of trade unions should be voluntary or compulsory? In that survey 81.2 per cent of respondents answered that they thought that union membership should be voluntary. Only 13.9 per cent thought that it should be compulsory. Of course, that clearly shows yet another example of the way in which this Government is out of touch with the views of the community. Only 13.9 per cent of the community supports the clauses which the Government seeks to include in this legislation in regard to compulsory unionism. We, in the Opposition, support the view that unions ought to be voluntary. It is our belief in individual rights which prompts us to move these amendments, which will guarantee those rights in the industrial relations area. It is not acceptable that a government that claims to profess concern about human rights in other countries and that wants selective rights entrenched in the Australian Constitution-as it sought to achieve in the recent referendum-should put through this Parliament legislation that ignores human rights and international conventions, as does this Bill. So I strongly support the amendments which Senator Chaney has moved in relation to freedom of association and the right not to join a trade union and I urge the Senate to support those amendments. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.35) —I want to ask Senator Button to clarify a matter for me. Clause 122 (2) (b) states: . . . for ensuring that effect will be given to the purposes and objectives of an award. Will the Minister explain to me what that is intended to mean? As one runs one's eye across the qualifications upon which the Commissioner may make an award which provides preference, looking from subsection (2) (a) to (2) (d) one sees that, at the end of the day, every contingency is covered. I wonder why we bother to put in these qualifications and say that, under these circumstances, the Commissioner may direct that preference shall be given to members of organisations as provided by subsection (1). The truth of the matter is that if we cover for the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute, for the maintenance of industrial peace, or for the welfare of society, given the intention of the definition, without exception it means that there will be preference in every circumstance. In each case preference will have to be given. It is disturbing that in legislation one can find a provision to the effect that a commission shall grant preferences for the welfare of society. I ask Senator Button: In what circumstances could compelling people to join a union-denying them freedom of choice, denying them rights, denying them an opportunity to make their own judgment-be, by any definition, described as being for the welfare of society? I would have thought that it was an absolute contradiction in terms-to grant preference to members in the case of it being for the maintenance of industrial peace. That simply means that thugs can maintain industrial anarchy whenever they choose. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.38) —I am really being asked by Senator Crichton-Browne what clause 122 (2) (b) means. In essence, the words in subclause (2) (b) state that the Commission may grant preference if one of the purposes of that is to ensure that effect will be given to the purposes and objectives of an award. I think these matters are within the Commission's discretion. As one example, let us assume that at a particular plant or enterprise there is a demarcation dispute between groups of employees. The Commissioner may then say, `I am making an award to settle this demarcation dispute. This work is properly done by electricians and, therefore, I am making an award and providing preference of employment in respect of that award in this plant to the organisation which covers electricians'. That is the sort of circumstance. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.39) —If preference is to be given for the prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute, that simply means that there is no place in the work force for the minority. Those who wish to disrupt industry because they want preferences can strike on that basis at any given time, and the Commission is simply able to rule that, for the prevention or the settlement of an industrial dispute, there should be a preference clause. It gives simply no right to the minority, because those who wish to impose their will upon others can continue to pursue their industrial disputation as long as they like. Paragraph (c) states, `for the maintenance of industrial peace . . . '. The same thing applies. It simply means that a group or a union can say that whenever there are no preference clauses there will be industrial disputation. The net result is that the commissioner can be blackmailed, because he can solve the dispute very quickly by automatically or immediately granting preference clauses. That allows no rights to those who do not wish to join a union. Senator Chaney is quite right: the trade union movement ought to be able to attract members on merit. Clearly the fact that the Government has found it necessary to put these provisions in-which in each case are simply saying that the trade union movement insists on compulsory unionism-means that the unions are not prepared to chance their arm in the free market; they are not prepared to say, `We are so good, membership is so naturally compelling, that people will automatically join us'. The Soviet Union and Poland do not have compulsory unionism, but when one asks people in those countries why they have trade unions they say that they offer particular benefits. Senator Button —But organisations are not always attractive, you see. Look at the Liberal Party; look at the membership of the Liberal Party. It has voluntary membership. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —But presumably people join the Australian Labor Party, mistaken as they might be, and join the Liberal Party, discerning as they might be, because they perceive for themselves a benefit. Senator Button —Discerning that it needs help in your case. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, not because it needs help. But that is not a situation that the union movement is prepared to put itself in. It is not prepared to say, `We can stand alone on our performance and the attraction to workers'. On education the unions simply say, `You have no right not to be a member of the union'. That is exactly the situation the Government has been prepared to commit itself to. It is offering peace at any price to those who insist on compulsory unionism. (Quorum formed) I ask Senator Button a question with respect to clause 266 (3). It is the provision dealing with conscientious objection, which is the second amendment. Would Senator Button explain to the Committee why exemption is provided for a period of but 12 months, subject to renewal by the registrar? I would have thought that, if a conscientious objector can demonstrate that he conscientiously objects to being a member of a union, he is not likely in 12 months to have a revelation and decide that he wants to be a member of a union. Is it not reasonable that once he has demonstrated he is a conscientious objector he be able to remain so? Why does he have to come back every 12 months and say, `I still do not want to be a member of a union'? Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.46) —It is not like a life membership. Senator Crichton-Browne —Why isn't it? Senator BUTTON —Because he might change his job, for example. Senator Crichton-Browne —Well, what happens if he gives evidence and says, `I just don't want to be a member of a union forever-any union.'? Senator BUTTON —No. He might change his job. He cannot say, `I am a conscientious objector in a particular situation', then get his plastic card and take it around forever. There is also an annual fee; he pays for the privilege. Senator Crichton-Browne —Pays for the privilege of not joining a union? Senator BUTTON —No, of obtaining a certificate of conscientious objection. Senator Crichton-Browne —That is the same thing. Senator BUTTON —No, it is not at all. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.48) —I wish briefly to respond to the Minister's reply, because it seems to me to be inconsistent with the facts. It is not possible to gain a certificate of conscientious objection under the present law on the basis that a person objects to a particular union, to a particular circumstance. As I understand it-and the Minister might advise me if I am wrong-a person's conscientious objection has to be a conscientious objection to union membership per se. So I think the Minister has been quite misleading in his reply. His reply, in so far as he points out that there is a need for an annual fee, is undoubtedly correct, but that could be paid without any sort of sense of additional application or something. That could be an imposed obligation to pay. But I ask the Minister to confirm that what he said is in fact wrong, that one cannot go before the Commission and say, `I am a conscientious objector because I do not like that particular union or these particular circumstances'. That person has to declare a complete objection to membership of a trade union. That is one of the restrictions in the law which we find thoroughly objectionable. We think there are many circumstances in which an individual might feel he would be perfectly happy to join, let us say, the Vehicle Builders Union because he thinks that is a terrific union, doing a terrific job, but he does not want to be a member of some other union because he thinks it is just a bunch of people creating industrial problems in his place of employment. That sort of choice is simply not open to somebody under the law and we believe that is the sort of choice that should be open to Australian workers. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.50) —There is an application made in respect of conscientious objection and it is dealt with, as I understand it, by a hearing, in which circumstances the person concerned has to establish the genuineness of his claim, if you like. That normally goes to the question of evidence surrounding the circumstances of his workplace, as I understand it, and that is what would be done. If I gave the impression before that it had-- Senator Chaney —I think you are quite wrong in your description of the situation. That is precisely the point I was challenging. The particular workplace specifically will not get the man exemption. Senator BUTTON —No, the objection is general. The honourable senator is right. If I misled him about that in my earlier remarks, I apologise. The objection is general. But in establishing the general objection the person has to establish the genuineness of his objection. Although it is not in the legislation, I understand that he does that by establishing the nature of his objection and illustrating it in particular circumstances. That, as I understand it, is the way it happens-I may be wrong. I touched on the question of the payment of an annual fee. That is the reason for renewal. I will certainly ask the Minister to have a look at this question to see whether there can be some improvement in those procedures. On first sight they seem a little clumsy to me. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.52) —I wish to respond very briefly to a couple of points that have been made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). I would like again to deal with the point that he has just made. The clause that we have sought to delete and replace is quite clear. A person has to satisfy the registrar that his conscientious beliefs do not allow him to be a member of an association of the kind that is dealt with in this legislation. In other words, it has to be a quite general belief. Suppose someone says, `I have a conscientious objection to being a member of a union'. The union will say, `Are you a member of the NRMA?'. If he says yes, the union will say, `There you are; you haven't got a conscientious objection to this sort of thing'. It is a very narrow group of people who are entitled to claim exemption under these provisions and have protection given to their individual freedom. I would suggest to the Minister that his explanation might be a more acceptable approach. The Minister, in his earlier comments, at least suggested that if the circumstances of a particular workplace led a person to object that would be considered. The law would be a little fairer if that were true. I would ask the Minister to consider changes that would make the law as he described it rather than the law that he is seeking to have enacted here today. To go back to the Minister's original comments, may I say that there is no intention and no wish on the part of the Opposition to unsettle the industrial relations climate. We want a more flexible system, which is what the Government itself-through the mouth of the various Ministers, including the Treasurer, Mr Keating-has said it wants. The Confederation of Australian Industry, which has been consulted on this Bill as part of the National Labour Consultative Council, supports the approach we are suggesting with respect to preference to unionism. This is not some sabotage of the legislation and it is not something outside the scheme of the legislation. In the countries that I gave as examples, including Australia, where there is a constitutional guarantee against the requirement that one join a union, there are very high levels of union membership. In other words, having voluntary membership guaranteed is quite compatible with a high level of union membership. It depends how satisfactory the trade unions are to the people whose membership they require. We have no objection to trade unions attracting membership. They do so by the quality of the service that they provide for the membership. In our view it is in the economic interest of Australia, but even more importantly it is an acknowledgment of basic rights of Australians, that people be able to choose whether or not they join a trade union. I believe that our amendments should be carried. They certainly would be carried if the people of Australia had a direct vote. This is one of those occasions when I wish these matters were determined by referendum rather than by legislative action. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.55) —I have no wish to hold this legislation up. May I make two points to Senator Button. Firstly, in my view, to say that we believe in the promotion of freedom of choice is not, as Senator Button said, comforting jargon. Senator Button —I didn't say that. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, the Minister did. I said that we were promoting freedom of choice and he said, `You might use that comforting jargon'. He went on to say that we were promoting weak and fragmented unions. Senator Chaney has covered that. Of course we are not. The unions will be more dynamic. Outside of politics we have always argued for strong, responsible unions. Nobody benefits from weak and fragmented unions, as the Minister describes them. If unionism is voluntary, trade unions will be strong, virile, effective and functioning trade unions which will achieve for their members that which is not presently achieved. I think the European Trade Union Confederation in the United Kingdom has had so much success because it has offered trainee programs and a whole scope of benefits to its members, which has caused it to be one of the few unions in the United Kingdom whose membership is going up. That is the sort of union the Minister should be aiming for in Australia, not the dead hand of compulsion that allows a few trade union leaders to manipulate not only individuals but the economy of this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.57) —I wish to refer very briefly to the comments that have been made here. I think the best way of doing this would be to refer honourable senators to the final report of the Senate Select Committee on Industrial Relations Legislation of October 1982. That Committee was established when the Viner legislation came before the Parliament. It received evidence from various groups and individuals, sorted through a substantial amount of evidence, heard witnesses and made a report to the Parliament. One of the matters which the Senate charged the Committee to address was this issue of preference for unionists-whether the provisions of the old Conciliation and Arbitration Act in relation to preference should be maintained or whether they should not. It should be recalled that the Viner amendments in regard to the question of preference for unionists were not particularly different from those being proposed in amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in this chamber. One of the problems is that it has been construed that having provision for the Commission to award preference for unionists means compulsory unionism, a closed shop. It does not. I am opposed to compulsory unionism and I am opposed to the closed shop. I am very much in favour of a conscientious objection clause that is quite broad. I wish to quote to the chamber the observations of that Committee because I was Chairman of that Committee and the Leader of the Government (Senator Button) was a member. You, Mr Chairman, were a member also but I think you dissented on this particular aspect. For the benefit of the Committee I will read what the Senate Select Committee said in respect of this issue: The Committee notes that the Government intends that its proposed legislation will weaken the power of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to deal with union membership disputes. That is in respect of preference for unionists. It continued: The Committee shares the view generally expressed by witnesses that the proposed legislation- I interpolate here `and the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition'- would not be conducive to industrial peace and would further unsettle the industrial relations climate. The Committee notes that the Government also intends its legislation to `provide a better balance in the powers, rights and duties of employers and employees'. Frankly, whilst that is not the stated objective of the amendment, that is precisely the outcome. It continued: Clearly, this legislation would fundamentally disturb this balance in favour of employers. Clearly the amendment moved by the Opposition would fundamentally disturb this balance in favour of employers. The report continued: The Committee considers that the proposed legislation is an undesirable and unwarranted intervention into the field of industrial relations particularly at a time when high levels of unemployment have already disturbed this balance. That is my concern at the present moment. I am concerned that if there are not strong, representative unions and if they are not able to achieve awards which will protect the weak we will have a situation where, because of high unemployment, people will be offering themselves for jobs in industry at lower rates of pay. I think that that also may be the outcome of some of the other amendments before this chamber last night and today. The report continued: The Committee believes that viable unions are essential for the operation of Australia's system of conciliation and arbitration. The Committee considers that the proposed section- relating to the abolition of preference- would undermine this viability to an unacceptable extent and it recommends that it not be incorporated in the Act. The report continued: The Committee notes further that the Government intends that its legislation ensure `the protection of the rights of the individual'. The report then made an observation that is apt to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition today: Some individuals are quick to recognise their perceived rights but are not also as quick to recognise their duty to associate with others for the common good. In addition there is a distinction between personal choice based on conscientious belief on the one hand and the dictates of self-centred individualism on the other. I think that is something that this Committee should consider. What the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition proposes to do is to delete the provisions relating to conscientious objection. So really it will not be a test of whether a person's individual conscientious rights are preserved but whether a person's self-centred individualism is preserved. Why should people be able to gain the benefits which are paid for by fellow workers, having refused in a self-centred, individualistic way to contribute? Frankly, I would prefer to provide as broad a provision as possible relating to conscientious objection which would thoroughly protect the conscientious objections of certain individuals to belonging to trade unions, than to leave it up to the self-centred desires of a particular individual not to contribute as he or she is duty bound to contribute. I do not particularly like some aspects of the provision in the Government's legislation because I think it is a little too narrow. However, I believe that if this Committee supported the Opposition Leader's amendments that would certainly disturb the balance in favour of selfishness and self-centred individualism of particular persons who are not prepared to play their part. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman-Senator M. A. Colston) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Baume, Michael Bolkus, N.Walters, M. S. Richardson, G. F.Lewis, A. W. R. Devlin, A. R.Newman, J. M. McMullan, R. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(11.12) —by leave-I move: (15) Page 55, subclause 124 (1), line 27, leave out ``Subject to this section, the'', insert ``The''. (16) Pages 55 and 56, subclauses 124 (2) and (3), line 32 (page 55) to line 4 (page 56), leave out the subclauses. The amendments relate to clause 124 of the Bill, which concerns strike pay. The Opposition's amendments restore the existing prohibition preventing the new Industrial Relations Commission from dealing with claims for strike pay. The existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act specifically says that the existing Commission has no power to make an award or recommendation for payment in respect of a period when employees are engaged in industrial action. But in clause 124 of this Bill, which refers to the limitation on powers of the Commission relating to payments in relation to periods of industrial action, subclause (1) says: Subject to this section, the Commission is not empowered to deal with a claim for the making of a payment to employees in relation to a period, whether before or after the making of the claim, or before or after the commencement of this section, during which those employees engaged, or engage, in industrial action. Subclause (2) says: Subsection (1) does not prevent the Commission dealing with a claim for the making of a payment to employees in relation to a period before the making of the claim but after the commencement of this section during which those employees were engaged in industrial action where the Commission is satisfied that the industrial action was justified by a concern on the part of the employees: (a) that was reasonable; (b) that was about their health or safety; and (c) that arose in relation to matters within the reasonable responsibility of the employer concerned. Subclause (3) says: Where the Commission is satisfied as to the matter mentioned in subsection (2) in relation to some, but not all, of the employees, the Commission is only empowered to deal with so much of the claim as relates to the employees in relation to whom the Commission is satisfied. This Bill therefore permits the Commission to award strike pay in disputes where it is quite satisfied that the industrial action was justified on health or safety grounds. This clause has been strongly opposed by employers as an open invitation to blatant abuse. A recent report on work practices in the building industry by Professor Vernon Ireland, Dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Building at the University of Technology in Sydney, found a significant correlation between the time lost through industrial disputes and the number of strike days paid for-that is, the more strike days that are paid for the higher the level of disputation. On 26 August the Confederation of Australian Industry indicated in a press release strong support for our amendments to this clause, which would make strike pay illegal. Amendment (15) removes the words `Subject to this section', from subclause 124 (1), so that it will then read: The Commission is not empowered to deal with a claim for the making of a payment to employees in relation to a period . . . Then there will be the reference to the period relating to industrial action. That is as the subclause is worded. Amendment (16) has the effect of completely removing from the legislation proposed subsections (2) and (3). Those subclauses provide for the provision of strike pay with regard to matters of health and safety. This provision in the legislation which allows for strike pay in certain circumstances is, as I said, a significant change from the existing legislation and is certainly a backward step from the existing Act. The guidelines which have been provided relating to health and safety in this clause are open to very wide interpretation and in practice it will be very difficult for the Industrial Relations Commission to restrict the awarding of strike pay for disputes concerned solely or primarily with these criteria. Of course, one might argue that in matters of health and safety industrial action may be justified and therefore in those circumstances strike pay is justified. But it really is opening a pandora's box because of this capacity for wide interpretation and the difficulty of the Commission to limit its decisions to genuine claims relating to health and safety. This is already exemplified in the building industry, where the principle of strike pay on matters of health and safety has already been accepted and the way in which these provisions have been abused by trade unions has become a matter of great concern. I guess, as I said in the second reading debate, that the concept of strike pay represents perfect Labor logic. After all, if one can pick up a travelling allowance for not travelling, why not pick up a working wage for not working? The coalition believes, and it is clearly stated in our industrial relations policy, that health and safety issues should be resolved by appropriate inspection and mediation, not by unilateral industrial action. There are any number of cases in the building industry of stop work action being taken in the name of health or safety or employer negligence which was in fact little more than an excuse to have a paid day off work. No real health or safety issue was at stake at all. There are many instances of building workers using very minor or irrelevant issues as an excuse to pull everyone off the job. I gave some examples of those in the second reading debate. Weather conditions which affect only two or three workers and the non-union membership of a qualified first aid person on site are hardly issues which qualify as a sufficient threat to health and safety to justify workers walking off a job and going home. Yet there are numerous welldocumented cases where this is just the sort of abuse that goes on in relation to industrial action over health and safety issues. It is a cause of major concern among employer groups and indeed among members of the general community, who are growing sick and tired of being held to ransom by large union groups for no apparent worthwhile or justified reason. This Bill offers what amounts to a virtual open invitation, through clause 124, for unions to go on strike and it is for that reason that the Opposition is moving amendments (15) and (16), which will ensure that the existing prohibition in the present Conciliation and Arbitration Act on the Commission being able to award strike pay will be retained in this new Bill. The coalition takes the issue of strike pay very seriously. When in government, we will make it an offence for any employer to pay or any employee to accept strike pay and we will amend the Act to prohibit a union from taking industrial action in pursuit of a demand for strike pay. But I hope we do not have to wait until the next Liberal Government is elected, at the next election, to achieve that goal. I hope the Government is sensible enough to accept the amendments I have moved today on behalf of the Opposition to ensure that there is no opportunity under this new legislation for strike pay to be granted. In our view, the granting of power to the Commission to award strike pay is immoral and unacceptable and will only lead to an unprecedented wave of strikes across the nation. If we are to avoid total industrial anarchy we must accept amendments (15) and (16) which I have moved on behalf of the Opposition. I urge the Senate in committee to accept those amendments. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.20) —I rise to support my colleague Senator Chapman. I do not wish to add to the debate except to comment that it does have a surface appeal to say that the one form of strike the Government will allow to be paid for is one which has to do with health and safety. Senator Chapman made the point that there is widespread abuse of health and safety issues. When the Industrial Relations Bill was introduced, the Employers Federation of New South Wales put out a press release which detailed some of the sorts of abuses which occur in the building industry where absolutely farcical issues have been used as a basis for health or safety issues. Again, rather that prolong the debate, I simply seek leave to incorporate that press release in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- NEWS RELEASE FROM THE EMPLOYERS' FEDERATION OF NSW FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE STRIKE PAY CLAUSE MUST GO-EMPLOYERS A clause in the Federal Government's new Industrial Relations Bill which allows the Arbitration Commission to award strike pay to workers involved in some industrial disputes is an open invitation to blatant abuse, a leading employer spokesman said today. The executive director of the Employers' Federation of NSW, Garry Brack, said: ``What the Government is proposing is to encourage by legislation all sorts of rorts which are being perpetrated already by some unions in the name of health and safety.'' The Bill, introduced in Parliament three weeks ago by Industrial Relations Minister Ralph Willis, proposes to allow the Commission to award strike pay in disputes where it is ``satisfied that the industrial action was justified by a concern on the part of the employees (a) that was reasonable; (b) that was about their health and safety; and (c) that arose in relation to matters within the reasonable responsibility of the employer concerned.'' This is in sharp contrast with the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act, which specifically says the Commission has no power to make an award or recommendation for payment in respect of a period when employees are engaged in industrial action. ``What the Government is proposing will give carte blanche to the unions to use any pretext, no matter how minor, to go on strike and say there's a health or safety issue involved,'' Mr Brack said. ``There's enough of this kind of thing going on already, without giving it the stamp of authority of an Act of Parliament,'' he said. ``In the building industry, in particular, all sorts of so-called safety issues, which are nothing of the kind, are being used as excuses for walking off the job. ``There have been instances where workers won't walk across an even slightly wet floor on a construction site. ``In some cases they won't even use alternative access routes to walk around a puddle on the floor. ``In other cases they've refused to walk short distances from site sheds to building work which is under cover. ``In yet other cases, if it's wet on the roof where two or three people may be working, everyone on the site could walk off together, even though 95 per cent of them might be working under cover-all in the name of an alleged safety issue. ``In other words: one out, all out; and in such circumstances there is even a refusal to allow the workers from the roof to be redeployed to a dry area.'' Mr Brack said there had been cases where a protective cover had been put up to keep the rain off workers walking to a site, and they had refused to work because the cover had sprung a slight leak. ``In another case involving a wage dispute, this time in the manufacturing sector, storemen and packers claimed that the odd pothole in a road made it unsafe to move materials with forklift trucks, even though they didn't have to go anywhere near that section of roadway.'' Mr Brack said some unions were also using the issue of first aid as a convenient way of creating industrial disruption. ``The BWIU, for instance, insists that the first aid person on the site has to be one of its members-even if there's a triple-certificated nurse or some other qualified person among the employer's people-and then uses the first-aider's absence, for whatever reason, as an excuse to pull everyone off the job. ``The BWIU is supposed to leave the first aid person on the job if its members leave the site during a dispute, but often doesn't, which means members of other union walk off, too, and the site has to shut down completely. ``There have even been instances where unions have walked off a site just because there has been a temporary loss of power to the first aid shed.'' Mr Brack said these examples indicated why employer groups were also expressing concern about another of the new Bill's provisions aimed at reducing the number of trade unions in Australia. ``This proposal to foster bigger unions is already being seen, and used, by some of the larger unions to try to gain control of areas of work where they did not previously have membership coverage,'' he said. ``In the result, these unions will simply become even more powerful and arrogant than they are now. ``We certainly don't need any legislative encouragement for industrial anarchy, and we believe strongly that the Government should abandon this highly dangerous clause and also maintain the current ban on the Commission granting strike pay.'' Further information: Garry Brack, phone- Business Hours: (02) 264 2000. Mobile: (018) 222 456. After hours: (02) 327 4151. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Chapman's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 35 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Peter Messner, A. J.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. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Harradine, B.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins. J. A.Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Powell, J. F.Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Baume, Michael Bolkus, N.Walters, M. S. Richardson, G. F.Newman, J. M. Devlin, A. R.Lewis, A. W. R. McMullan, R. F. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(11.28) —I move: (4) Page 59, subclause 133 (2), line 2, after ``organisations'' insert ``and associations''. This amendment is being moved to broaden the range of industry consultative councils to which the terms of clause 133 can apply. The purpose of clause 133 is to permit members of the Industrial Relations Commission to participate in the deliberations of industry consultative councils where they exist. In the Government's view this would assist in improving relationships between employers and employees and their understanding of their industry. The provision does not establish consultative councils nor does it deal with their composition; it merely permits the involvement of members of the Commission in certain cases. There are a number of other things, but I think that summarises the purpose of the amendment. If there is any debate I will reply in due course. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.30) —The Opposition does not oppose the amendment and I think we should dispose of it. Amendment agreed to. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.30) —I move: (17) Page 67, clause 146, lines 26 to 31, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Commencement of awards ``146. (1) An award or a variation of an award shall be expressed to come into force on a specified day. ``(2) The day specified in an award or a variation of an award for the purposes of subsection (1) shall not be earlier than the day on which the award or variation was made.''. The effect of the amendment is to prevent the Commission from making or varying awards retrospectively. The Bill provides that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, awards shall not come into force retrospectively. The amendment deletes the exceptional circumstances provision and extends the ban on retrospectivity to the variation of awards. The Opposition believes that retrospective decisions are wrong in principle and can cause uncertainties and difficulties for business, and we believe the Bill will be improved by this amendment. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(11.31) —The Government opposes this amendment. The Hancock Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems considered the proposal that is now before us in the form of an amendment. It recommended, in recommendation No. 128 of its report, that instead the legislation state that prospective dates of effect be given to awards and orders unless the Commission forms the opinion that special and compelling reasons exist to warrant the granting of a retrospective application. The Hancock Committee indicated that the Commission's powers should be as broad as possible to enable it to perform its function of dispute resolution effectively. It pointed out that such a blanket provision-or prohibition, as suggested by the Confederation of Australian Industry-might encourage parties to obstruct and delay proceedings. In the interests of trying to address these matters with all due speed and reasonable haste, I might add that I think most industrial relations practitioners would say that, if there is a conflict between giving the Commission more powers or fewer powers so that it is restricted in terms of what it can do, we should err on the side of giving the Commission more powers to give it scope to make appropriate adjudications in particular circumstances as they arise. Those particular circumstances cannot always be anticipated by us, the legislators. I suggest that it would be an inappropriate intrusion of the legislative arm to limit arbitrators in making a decision such as this. I repeat that we oppose the amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.32) —In the interests of brevity, I rise just to make the point that the Commission cannot award an increase in rates of pay retrospectively in the sense that it cannot award an increase beyond the date on which the first claim on the employer was made. So we are not talking about the issue of retrospectivity as such. I would certainly oppose any provision which would enable an award to be made retrospective to a date before the date the claim was served on the employer. Indeed, that would be beyond the power of the Commission. I also support the view that is expressed in the Bill itself that, under normal circumstances, an award should not apply from a date earlier than the date upon which the award was actually made. However, as the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, has mentioned, there are exceptional circumstances. We have all known circumstances in which a small group of employers in an industry has made it most difficult for the resolution of an industrial dispute to take place. Under those circumstances all the Bill is doing under `exceptional circumstances' is enabling the Commission in making an award as it can do now under the existing Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Act, to take account of such exceptional circumstances, but only in those cases. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.35) —I indicate for the record that I do not propose to call a division on this amendment for the reasons I indicated earlier. Since it does not have the support of the Australian Democrats and it would not be carried, in the interests of time I will not call a division. Amendment negatived. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.35) —I now move to Opposition amendment (19), which I propose to deal with separately from amendments (20) and (21). Those three amendments, although grouped together in the list that has been circulated, involve different considerations. I move: (19) Page 72, Division 8 of Part VI, lines 12 to 37, leave out the Division. This amendment deals with the subject of overriding State legislation. All members of the Committee would be aware that different States have taken different action to try to ensure that very destructive industrial disputes will be avoided. One of the most contentious and best known examples of that was the attempts made by the Queensland Government-I might say ultimately highly successful attempts-to take action with respect to the South East Queensland Electricity Board industrial dispute in which the trade unions were seeking to limit the capacity of the Electricity Board to use contract labour for maintenance. That dispute happened years ago, but I am sure that it is still fresh in the memory of many people, particularly those people in Brisbane who saw their freezer food destroyed and had all the problems of no refrigeration, no air-conditioning and, in some cases, no capacity to cook. People remember the suffering that was engendered for old and sick people. It was the sort of industrial dispute which causes most Australians to feel very upset and to feel that at times trade unions seriously abuse their power. That sort of strike is at the heart of the statistics which show that the great majority of Australians are very concerned at excesses of trade union power and abuses of trade union power. Different pieces of legislation have been passed by the States to take these matters in hand. Most recently in New South Wales a serious dispute on the waterfront was dealt with by the State Government, which indicated it would use its essential services legislation and impose very heavy penalties if the strike continued. Senator Chapman —You need a change of government in Victoria. Senator CHANEY —Senator Chapman says that we need a change of government to get that sort of action. I remember that the late unlamented Unsworth Government, in its final days when it was seeking desperately to be re-elected, called upon the emergency legislation with respect to a transport strike. Senator Chapman —Not the Cain Government. Senator CHANEY —The Cain Government, I am afraid, is unlikely to show the same nerve, but I do not think it will be around for much longer for us to worry about anyway. However, I should not be distracted. The point is that the constitutional governments of the States have adopted their own provisions seeking to deal with this vexed problem. The inadequacy of many of the remedies was demonstrated earlier this year in Victoria when very significant transport strikes caused tremendous dislocation for people working in the city of Melbourne. It was an example of the ineffectiveness of existing remedies and existing State legislation. I am sure the commuters of Melbourne have not forgotten that dispute. In this legislation the Government is seeking to reduce the impact, to minimise the effectiveness, of State laws dealing with industrial action. The amendment which has been moved by the Opposition will simply preserve to the maximum extent possible the capacity of the States to have their own measures to deal with this sort of anticommunity industrial disputation. We have a number of concerns with division 8 of this legislation. Those concerns have been reflected by the State Government spokesmen who have been in touch with us. To underline the fact that this is not just a concern of the Federal Opposition, I wish to refer to the representations which were made by the Queensland Government and by Minister Vince Lester of that Government. Quite clearly they are concerned that the very effective steps that the Queensland Government has taken to reduce the impact upon consumers of this sort of strike activity may be undermined by what the Commonwealth is proposing in this legislation. Mr Lester says: The Bill provides that an action under a law of a State or Territory does not lie against a trade union, or an officer, member or employee of a trade union, in relation to boycott conduct. This includes both Federal and state registered unions . . . In addition the Bill provides that State or territory legislation will not apply to conduct that is a breach of an order by the Commission in respect of industrial action by Commonwealth public sector employees or to Federally-registered unions in relation to breaches of bans clauses of a Federal award. Mr Lester goes on to point out that if the provisions in the Bill are valid they would override the Industrial (Commercial Practices) Act of the State of Queensland. Again, I wish the Government would put these matters to referendum. I suspect there would be no doubt that within the State of Queensland there would be overwhelming support for the Queensland legislation. I have absolutely no doubt that around Australia there would be overwhelming support for this legislation even though it is Queensland legislation and does not affect the rest of Australia. But the idea that the public should be protected from unnecessary and destructive strike action is, I believe, certainly very strongly supported by the Australian community. This Government, in trying to reduce the capacity of State governments to take effective action on behalf of their citizens, is clearly flying in the face of the requirements of the public. The truth is that it is this sort of provision which accurately demonstrates the fact that the Government is very much beholden to its principal supporters in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Government really is to be condemned because in this sort of provision it is not serving the interests of the people of Australia. It is serving the interests of a narrow section of the people of Australia-that minority of trade unionists who would be prepared to inflict this sort of difficulty and hardship upon the public. So what we are saying is that we do not believe that it should be part of the agenda of this Parliament to be striking down what have proved to be effective State provisions against strike action. I believe that the events of recent years ought to have demonstrated to the Government that it should leave to the States the handling of these matters which clearly come within State jurisdiction. Even Labor governments have been prepared to take action. The Unsworth Government and its predecessor, the Wran Government, were prepared to enact legislation in this sort of area. As I said before, the Unsworth Government, at least in its dying stages, was prepared to act. We certainly should not be putting logs in the path of those who would act in this way to protect the public interest. Mr Lester went on to say: Obviously at the behest of its ACTU friends, the Commonwealth is intent upon emasculating this potent weapon against union thuggery. If it succeeds in this, unfortunately the consequences will affect the entire Queensland community. I would add that it would potentially affect the entire Australian community. All of us-the people of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia-will lose the potential protection of State government attempts to deal with this sort of minority but intensely damaging trade union behaviour. I believe that this is an area in which we should have been able to count very clearly on the support of the Australian Democrats. I think if they asked their constituency whether it was appropriate for the Commonwealth law to strike down the attempts of State governments to deal with this sort of action, most of them would answer a resounding no. I very much doubt whether Senator McLean will be able to get up in this place and say that the Democrat constitution, which permits policy formation by ballot of all Democrat members, will have been followed in this case and that Democrat members will have indicated that they support this sort of approach by the present Commonwealth Government. The Liberal and National parties alone will not be able to block this provision. I think it is a matter of great regret that effective State legislation will now come under challenge because of the failure of the Australian Democrats to support this Opposition amendment. I should indicate that not only politicians have made representations about this provision. Representations have been made by industry associations. I have before me representations from the Housing Industry Association which expresses its very great apprehension about the possible effect of this legislation on provisions relating to independent contractors and so on. It is important to note that if the Senate passes this legislation it will certainly not be speaking for the people of Australia. I do not think there is any doubt that the people of Australia would give the strongest possible support to State efforts to make the sorts of provisions that the Commonwealth has made in the Trade Practices Act to prevent secondary boycotts and the quite criminal interference with the public interest which occurs in some of these quite unnecessary strike actions. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.46) —It has already been indicated that the Government will not support the amendment, largely for reasons of the ground that we have gone over on several occasions during this debate. I happened to hear Senator Chaney illustrating a point that he sought to make by referring to a transport strike in Victoria. He concluded by saying, `The people of Victoria will not forget that'. I just want to make the point that the assumptions in that sort of comment, directed as they are in terms of the Victorian election to be held tomorrow, are that if an alternative government is elected in Victoria these problems will be resolved in some way. All I want to say to Senator Chaney is that in making those sorts of comments he should bear in mind that the record of Liberal governments is just disastrous and will not lend any credibility to what he said. There has been a 60 per cent improvement in the industrial relations situation in Australia under this Government. Senator Chaney —A 60 per cent improvement from what? Senator BUTTON —From what it was in 1982-83 or taken over the seven years of the Fraser Government in terms of man days lost and so on. So the honourable senator can take whatever period he likes-the seven years of the Fraser Government or the last year of the Fraser Government, which admittedly was the worst. To come in here and seek to argue credibly that if there is a change of government in Victoria-and I can understand Senator Chaney's concern about that-these things will come right, is just so much rubbish. If there is a transport strike in Victoria these days, Victorians remember it. I remember it because they occur so infrequently compared with the frequency with which they used to occur in periods of Liberal government. If I had been asked in 1979 when the last transport strike had occurred, it would have been very difficult for me to give an answer because one's mind was blurred by the number of strikes which took place on almost a daily basis. When one is asked the same question in 1988 one is able to say when the last transport strike occurred because such an event is not significant any more. That illustrates the point that we have been seeking to make throughout this debate about the question of approach to industrial relations issues-whether one approaches them in a confrontationist way or whether one approaches them in a way which changes attitudes and mind sets, which are the most important things to change in a permanent and ongoing sense if long term benefits are to accrue to this country and, for example, the State of Victoria. A number of similar points were made to try to illustrate the validity of the Opposition's amendment. The illustrations do not conform with the text of the amendment, either in respect of these provisions or in respect of a number of others which we have debated in the course of this legislation. As I said before, Senator Chaney is advancing an alternative view, which I respect and understand, but in respect of this legislation I make the point that the Opposition amendment does not sit well with a federal system of industrial relations in which there are both State and Federal jurisdictions and the interests of State jurisdictions are very much ignored by it. Progress reported. The PRESIDENT —In the Senate yesterday Senator Macklin raised the matter of the acoustics in this chamber, as have a number of other senators since the Senate first sat here on 22 August. Senators may be aware that senior Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) management and technical officials were here in Parliament House yesterday to investigate these problems. Following this review of the sound reinforcement system I have now received written advice from the Assistant Managing Director (Resources) of the ABC as to a number of actions which will be taken to improve both the sound level and quality in the chamber. Some of this work can be done during next week, with the major work being done in the week beginning 24 October. I am assured that the ABC recognises the difficulties all senators are experiencing. It is expected that the proposed work will lead to a worthwhile improvement in sound reinforcement and that the system is being kept under continuous review. The PRESIDENT —At Question Time yesterday Senator Knowles raised the issue of the alleged behaviour of a senator in the non-members bar on Wednesday night. I undertook to investigate the alleged incident and report back to the Senate. I have received statements from Senator Burns, the staff member involved and witnesses to the incident. There is no doubt that conflict did occur, as was outlined in the Senate yesterday. Whilst not doubting Senator Burns's statement that provocation was involved, senators should show courtesy and consideration to members of staff at all times. I call Senator Burns. Senator BURNS(Queensland) —I regret that the incident on Wednesday evening occurred. Should any offence have been taken by the member of staff involved, I humbly apologise for having given that offence. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the Minister noticed the statement made in Berlin by the Australian Secretary to the Treasury that monetary policy has been tightened and will remain quite firm in the coming months? In light of the Treasury's determination to retain a tight hold on monetary policy-a determination which is no doubt a determination of the Government-does the Minister still believe, as he said on Tuesday, that conditions are in place `where interest rates are expected to fall'? Does he also believe Wednesday's version that, looking ahead, there exists `a better environment for interest rates'? How does the Minister maintain this unrealistic position when everyone knows that home buyers will be hit by big mortgage increases once the Victorian election is out of the way? Or is the Minister, like so many of his colleagues in the Hawke Government, so out of touch that he cannot see what is happening in the real world? Senator BUTTON —I have seen the remarks made by the Secretary to the Treasury in Berlin at the International Monetary Fund meeting. Certainly, in answering a question the other day I said that the Government had set the conditions for a reduction in interest rates over time. I based that observation on the Budget Speech and the comment about the future made by the Treasurer. He said at that time: While other instruments have taken a greater share of the weight, monetary policy must continue to play its vital balancing role in the overall strategy of restraint. He went on to say that in terms of a number of factors the conditions were conducive to a fall in interest rates. In making the Budget Speech, the Treasurer was talking about the period of the Budget year. It is quite true that short term interest rates have edged up in the month of September. However, let me draw the Senate's attention to one other important fact because I am quite aware of the context in which this question has been raised by Senator Chaney. For example, this morning the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Mr Johnston, strongly criticised the claims made by Opposition politicians that the Reserve Bank has been keeping interest rates down before tomorrow's Victorian election. Speaking on Channel 9's Business Today program, the Governor of the Reserve Bank said: Most right thinking people would think it peculiar that it was necessary for me to say that the Bank would not manipulate interest rates for political ends. Mr Johnston went on to say that the allegations by the Opposition Leader, John Howard, and shadow Finance spokesman, John Hewson, questioned the integrity of the Reserve Bank of Australia. He said: I find it a very severe slur, not only on the Board but on the staff of the Bank. The Board has been appointed or reappointed by the Fraser Government and the Hawke Government and they are not sycophants by any means. That goes to the senior staff of the Bank. I refer to that quote simply because this has been a well orchestrated issue by the Opposition and at the bottom of it all has been the allegation that this Government, in conjunction with the Reserve Bank, has been manipulating interest rates prior to the Victorian election. Senator Stone —Of course it has. Senator BUTTON —Senator Stone says `Of course it has'-I would like that on the record. Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. I do not mind the Minister following the technique of answering a different question from the one which was asked; that is very common in this place. The Minister has not only answered a question that he was not asked, but he is now clearly debating that question. I would ask you, Mr President, to call him to order. Senator Tate —He is replying to an interjection. Senator Chaney —I do not need the assistance of Senator Tate in this matter. The interjections came because the Minister was quite clearly debating a question that he was not asked. I ask you, Mr President, to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —I have been listening to the Leader of the Government and I think that he was answering the question on the grounds allowed. Senator BUTTON —As Senator Tate pointed out by way of interjection, I was answering not only Senator Chaney's question but also a number of interjections which confirmed what I was saying-that the rock bottom of this orchestrated campaign about interest rates has been the allegation that the Government, in conjunction with the Reserve Bank, has been manipulating interest rates. I emphasise that Mr Johnston, who is an officer of great integrity, said that most right thinking people would think it was peculiar for a person in his position to have to say that the bank would not manipulate interest rates for political ends. He said: I find it a very severe slur, not only on the Board but on the staff of the Bank. This is what this Opposition is about; it is what the Victorian Opposition has been about. It is not about directing attention to the major issues-and we predicted this a week or so ago-but it is about trying to raise issues which are not relevant to the election and are totally without substance. For example, Senator Alston raised a matter of public importance the other day which relied on an article in Saturday's Weekend Australian. That article was publicly corrected in the Australian on Monday. It admitted that it was incorrect. Yet on Tuesday Senator Alston came in here and submitted a matter of public importance on the basis of an article which the newspaper itself said was incorrect. That is the performance of the Opposition in this place and it is similar to the performance of the Opposition in Victoria. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Since the Minister has barely addressed the question I asked him I now ask whether he agrees that we are now in an environment of rising interest rates. Does he deny that there is already high risk of rising home interest rates in the very near future? Senator BUTTON —I have said on a number of occasions that I refuse to speculate about interest rates. Senator Chaney —You told us what the environment was earlier this week. Senator BUTTON —I told Senator Chaney what the environment was in terms of the fiscal year and I quoted from the Budget statement in relation to that on two occasions this week. Senator Chaney —What is the environment now? Senator BUTTON —In the month of September short term interest rates have edged up. That is what I said in answer to the first part of Senator Chaney's question. Beyond that, I am not going to speculate on interest rates. Opposition spokesmen come in here talking about housing interest rates when the same spokesmen have said that all housing interest rates should be deregulated. Yet they speculate about that in terms of what the Government's policy might be. Senator McMULLAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. It follows the announced Government decision to defer action on the old Parliament House. What arrangements have been made to examine options for the effective use of that building at the expiry of the period of deferment? Has consideration been given to providing a role for members of parliament in determining plans for the old House, similar to that which they played in the planning of this new Parliament House? Senator ROBERT RAY —The Government has been considering the question of options that might be used for the future of the old Parliament House. As we all know, a range of proposals has been spoken of. These include the proposals to turn it into a constitutional museum, a parliamentary exhibition and electoral education facilities, a conference centre, a portrait gallery; and, of course, the proposal for the use of the dining and kitchen facilities by the public. No doubt many of us would return there out of a fondness for the old food. All these proposals are being examined. But what we do with the old Senate chamber I am not sure. The Government favours a return, as far as practicable, to the 1927 shape, which would involve demolition of the south-east and south-west extensions. What is involved here is not simply a question of historical significance of those extensions. If they were to be kept they would impose a significant structural limitation on the future use of the building because of their standard. Converting these areas into modern standard office accommodation does have some difficulties in terms of being cost effective. Turning to the role of parliament and parliamentarians, in November 1985 the Gov- ernment decided that control of the building should reside with Government after the Parliament moved to the new Parliament House. Accordingly, the decision on the future use of the provisional Parliament House is primarily one for the Government. However, many members and senators have already made representations setting out their views on the future of the building. These views are going to be taken into consideration when we examine all the options before us. Finally, any final determination on the future by Government of this matter will require each House to be asked to approve of any works that may be necessary. Certainly at the final stage Parliament itself must be involved in the decision making process. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Aged Care. As with Senator Chaney's question I also refer to the speech in West Germany yesterday by the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, who said: The current account deficit is still much too high, the level of external debt is still much too high, and the inflation rate is much too high. Is the Minister aware that Mr Fraser also said that because the Budget and the latest wage decision have only just been brought down `that really only leaves monetary policy in the event that something further is required in the next few months'? Is it a fact that interest rates are the Government's main monetary policy tool? Is it not therefore also a fact that the presently forecast increases in interest rates that will occur following the Victorian election, and in particular the expected $22 increase in housing interest payments, will prove to be gross underestimates, thereby further reducing the living standards of ordinary Australians? Senator COOK —The first part of the question was whether Mr Fraser-that is, Bernie Fraser-made a certain comment. I have not actually seen what Bernie Fraser said. Because I have not seen it I cannot confirm whether Senator Short is accurately quoting Mr Fraser. That is not to say that Mr Fraser did not say that but I cannot confirm it. The second question was whether interest rates are the main tool of the Government in dealing with monetary policy. Senator Short —The main tool of monetary policy. Senator COOK —The answer to that question is no, it is not. It is one of the tools we apply in terms of managing our monetary policy. The third question concerned the forecast increase in home loan rates. The forecast increase in home loan rates is a bit of speculation that has been engaged in in the other place by Dr Hewson and more latterly in the public arena by the Leader of the Opposition, for the moment-what is his name-John Howard. It is a piece of speculation by them. Senator Short could not in his wildest dreams expect me to believe that the speculation they engage in is at all true. Senator SHORT —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister disputed my assertion that interest rates are the Government's main monetary policy tool. Senator Walsh —You can ration credit. That is what you used to do. Senator SHORT —Senator Walsh should let the Minister answer the question. If interest rates are not the Government's main monetary tool then could the Minister inform the Senate just what is? Senator Hill —Take it on notice. That is a good idea. Senator COOK —I am not going to take it on notice. I have given a sufficient answer to Senator Short's question and I do not propose to add to it. Senator CROWLEY —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer the Minister to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday which indicates that the Greiner Government intends to amend the State Government's Residential Tenancies Act passed by the Labor State Government last year. Does the Minister believe that diminishing tenants' rights in favour of landlords' powers will help resolve the severe housing problems facing tenants in New South Wales? What are the implications for the public housing problems in that State and the Federal Government's responsibilities in the housing area? Senator Puplick —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. While I appreciate the question related in part to the Federal Government responsibilities, would you indicate whether it is within the competence of the Minister to answer questions as to how this relates to the public housing policies and problems of the New South Wales Government which are in no way the responsibility of either the Federal Government or this Minister? The PRESIDENT —I listened to the question. I realise it is a difficult matter to determine and I will disallow any part of the question that is clearly not within the Minister's responsibilities. I remind the Minister of that before he answers. Senator COOK —I have seen the article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald of yesterday's date headed `Tenants to be stripped of their rights' and disclosing that the Sydney Morning Herald obtained, as it reports in its article, a document which sets out a number of changes the New South Wales Government proposes to make to the former Labor Government's Residential Tenancies Act. There are six particular changes, all of which are aimed at reducing the rights of tenants under the provision of what that Act would be. If the newspaper report is correct, then the New South Wales Government is clearly attacking the economically weaker tenants rather than dealing properly with rental supply problems in New South Wales. Sydney has the highest demand for rental housing of all Australian cities. Landlords are in a strong position and disadvantaged renters have to struggle hard to find accommodation and pay for it. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I take a point of order. You previously ruled, correctly, that the Minister was to confine himself to answering that part of the question, if any, which dealt with the responsibilities of the Federal Government. The question of the rights of tenants under New South Wales law is not a matter within the Minister's competence. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Puplick is correct. I have been listening to Senator Cook. If he intends to relate his answer to an area of his responsibility I ask him to get to it. Senator COOK —Mr President, I intend to relate it to an area of the responsibility of the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples. The Commonwealth obviously has an area of responsibility for public housing. The effects on tenants also affect the availability of public housing. I intend to relate it to Federal Government responsibility in that way. As I was saying, Sydney has the highest demand for rental housing of all Australian cities. Landlords are in a strong position. Disadvantaged renters have to struggle hard to find accommodation and pay for it. The proposed changes will put a further burden on them. Senator Peter Baume —Mr President, I raise the same point of order as Senator Puplick. Senator Cook is clearly flouting your ruling, which has asked him to relate the answer to his own area of responsibility. He is failing to do so. The PRESIDENT —I will ask Senator Cook to do that again. I have been listening to Senator Cook. He was reiterating the last part of his answer. Senator COOK —The direct relationship is that the Federal Government has acted to encourage rental investors by the initiatives it has introduced in the depreciation allowance on newly constructed rental dwellings. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a point of order-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I have not heard enough of Senator Cook's answer yet to rule whether it is out of order. Senator Chaney —Mr President, Senator Cook has said enough. He has said that he is now relating his answer to the question on the basis that the Commonwealth has made tax concessions with respect to rental accommodation. That is drawing what I would have to say is an impossibly long bow, Mr President. If he is going to persist in that line I think you should sit him down and let us get on with Question Time. The PRESIDENT —I will listen to the rest of Senator Cook's answer. Senator COOK —As I was saying, we have acted to encourage investment by introducing a depreciation allowance on newly constructed rental dwellings. We have also reintroduced the quarantining of negative gearing, aimed at increasing the stock of rental accommodation. Thus, having made those concessions to improve the availability of rental accommodation for ordinary low income earners, we view with considerable concern the fact that these steps should be taken by the New South Wales Government to impose a more onerous and difficult burden on people who are in an economically weak position. There is a stark contrast between what the Government of Victoria is doing and what the Government of New South Wales is proposing to do. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is clearly out of order. Senator JENKINS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and relates to information sought by Western Australian citizens about the satellite spy station to be set up in Geraldton, Western Australia. I draw the Minister's attention to an article in the Geraldton Guardian on 27 April 1988 referring to the Geraldton satellite station in which Tim James, Defence Signals Directorate Chief, is reported as saying that 10 British personnel will help set up the Geraldton project. Will the Minister confirm the presence of these British personnel? Referring to the same article, will the Minister confirm that intelligence gathered at Geraldton will be shared with the United States, New Zealand and other nations? With reference to an article in the Australian on 22 June 1988, has Australia agreed to help the New Zealand Government's Communications Security Bureau to set up a complementary satellite tracking station at Waihopai? With reference to an article in Jane's Defence Weekly in March 1987 by Australian defence journalist Frank Cranston, will the Geraldton station have a New Zealand input? If so, what will that New Zealand input be? Senator ROBERT RAY —It must be my week for a lack of reading. I have not read the Geraldton Guardian. However, by some mysterious process the matter has been drawn to my attention and I have some information for Senator Jenkins on this question. The Australian defence satellite communications station being constructed in Geraldton serves to enhance Australia's independent intelligence capabilities. This was announced in the policy information paper on defence presented to the Parliament by the Minister for Defence in March 1987. The Government has not elaborated on the operational role of the station. Regarding possible British involvement, discussions are taking place on the possible use of some British at the station for an initial period to provide training for Australians. An exchange of personnel between allies for such purposes is not unusual and would not represent any diminution of Australian control. Australia participates in intelligence exchanges with other nations. That is, the flow of intelligence is in both directions. We derive considerable benefit from those arrangements. It is government practice that specific details of such arrangements not be provided. New Zealand is one of the nations with which Australia has such an intelligence relationship. As I have said, it is government practice that specific details of such arrangements are not provided. However, I can assure the honourable senator that relationships will in no way erode Australian sovereignty over the Geraldton station. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I preface my question by remarking that during a recent overseas visit I was able to meet with and be briefed by members of the Australian defence forces who are performing peacekeeping duties in the Middle East. I was therefore interested in the announcement that the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations (UN). I ask: What is the Government's response to this announcement? Senator GARETH EVANS —As might be expected, the Australian Government very warmly welcomes the announcement. We note-indeed, with a degree of not only satisfaction but also pride, because of our involvement in it-the award of the 1988 Nobel Prize for Peace to the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations. We certainly welcome unreservedly recent developments promoting the settlement of regional conflicts through United Nations mechanisms and the revitalisation of the UN's peacemaking and peacekeeping functions. Taken together with the improvement of relations between the superpowers, this bodes well for a more orderly conduct of international relations in the future. Australia's support for the UN, including this function, goes right back to the time of its foundation, when Dr Evatt said that on the success of the UN organisation would depend the political shape of the world for a generation at least and possibly the future of modern civilisation. We have demonstrated our commitment to the UN subsequently and by our participation, amongst other things, in a number of these peacekeeping operations. Most recently we contributed 15 officers to the UN force monitoring the Iran-Iraq ceasefire. The Government has recently reaffirmed in principle our willingness to participate in the planned UN force in Namibia. As I will be saying to the UN General Assembly next week on behalf of Australia, we extend our warm congratulations to the UN, the Secretary-General and the men and women of the UN peacekeeping forces in current and former trouble spots all around the world. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It is a fact that the Reserve Bank of Australia yesterday increased its treasury note rediscount rate from 13.5 per cent to 13.8 per cent, that being the third rise in the last five weeks and an increase of one per cent in all over that period? Is not this rise occurring despite the Government's pressure on the Reserve Bank to hold down rates before the Victorian election? Does the Minister agree with the widespread sentiment in the money market today that the reluctance of the Reserve Bank to move its rediscount rate sufficiently yesterday makes it almost inevitable that there will be a further rise next week as part of the inevitable upward trend in rates which will soon hit home loan rates and hence home mortgage payments? Senator WALSH —I do not know precisely what happened to short term interest rates yesterday and short term rates about which Senator Stone spoke. Everybody knows that there has been some increase in short term interest rates. That fact is incompatible with the conspiracy theory being peddled in the House of Representatives by a mere meretricious player flitting across the stage of the House of Representatives. Senator Button —And here. Senator WALSH —Yes. The author of that succinct description-I might say `brilliant description'-of Dr Hewson as a mere meretricious player flitting across the stage has realised the inconsistency in the campaign that he has been running, about which he wrote and which the Australian published two days ago, I think, about some movement upwards in short term interest rates. That is incompatible with the conspiracy theory being peddled by the mere meretricious player. Senator Stone has now realised that incompatibility and has tried to divert attention from it. I did not look up the latest news on short term interest rates, but I do know what the Governor of the Reserve Bank said yesterday about the conspiracy theory being peddled by the mere meretricious player. Mr Johnston said: I follow an old-fashioned, probably it is now, an old-fashioned rule that when politicians make statements or assertions that is a matter for the parliament and I leave those matters to be dealt with in the parliament by the ministers. But I must take the opportunity of saying to you that it's totally untrue to say that the Reserve Bank would be a party to attempting to manipulate interest rates for political ends. I repeat: . . . it's totally untrue to say that the Reserve Bank would be a party to attempting to manipulate interest rates for political ends. A mere meretricious player would think nothing of reflecting on the integrity of the Reserve Bank Board and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, but I am surprised that Senator Stone, who at one time had somewhat higher standards in these matters, has stooped to the tactics employed by the person that he so brilliantly described as a mere meretricious player flitting across the stage of John Howard's office and flitting across the stage of the House of Representatives. Senator STONE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for his reply, which did not in any way address the question. Will the Minister address himself to the following propositions: firstly, that the Reserve Bank has been levering up-I think that was the phrase used in the article yesterday to which he referred-interest rates and, secondly, that the Government has been urging the Reserve Bank not to allow interest rates to rise as fast as they should? Can the Minister inform me whether he sees any incompatibility in those two propositions? Senator WALSH —I find it a bit disappointing that a question like that comes from a former Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, who ought to be familiar with the Reserve Bank Act 1959-the current Act. The Act contains an explicit provision-this is in response to his charge that the Government has been not allowing the Reserve Bank to determine interest rate policy-which is there because of unfortunate experiences in 1931, under which the Reserve Bank must comply with a direction issued to it by the Treasurer. To the best of my recollection, no such direction has ever been issued. If any such direction is issued it must be tabled in the Parliament. No such direction has been issued: therefore, the question of the Government not allowing the Reserve Bank to do something is irrelevant. Senator Stone accused me of not responding to the question. I have responded to the question. He asked me whether the Government was leaning on the Reserve Bank or not allowing the Reserve Bank to do something and I said that it was not. I quoted the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The Governor of the Reserve Bank had his character assassinated by the mere meretricious player in the House of Representatives on Wednesday. Senator Button —And by Senator Stone. Senator WALSH —And by Senator Stone this morning. It does not surprise me that the mere meretricious player, in peddling one of his conspiracy theories, would sink to those depths. However, it does surprise me that Senator Stone would do so. I could quote at some length what the mere meretricious player said on Wednesday. He painted a scenario in which he alleged that two chaps from the Reserve Bank were quietly and inoffensively waiting for a meeting with the Treasurer, when the Treasurer bounced into the room and allegedly said, and I quote from the House of Representatives Hansard: `What do you'-I pause here because I have to exclude two fairly colourful expletives which I will replace with the words `fine chaps'-two fine chaps think you are doing with interest rates?' In other words, this mere meretricious player is concocting fiction which he then tries to peddle as fact. He has been taken to task for that, very properly so and very adequately, by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. It does not surprise me that Dr Hewson, desperate to attract attention and desperate to edge Mr Peacock out of the shadow Treasurer's job-just as desperate as Senator Newman was to knife Senator Vanstone and take her place on the front bench-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order: I demand a withdrawal of that. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I am sorry, Mr President, I did not hear you. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Walsh to withdraw. Senator WALSH —There was so much noise coming from the other side of the chamber that I did not hear it. I withdraw. Desperate as Dr Hewson is to take Mr Peacock's job as shadow Treasurer, I am not surprised that he would resort to such tactics. However, I am surprised that Senator Stone would resort to such tactics unless he is equally desperate to get himself back on the front bench and into the shadow Cabinet. Senator Tambling —On a point of order: I ask the Minister to table the documents from which he quoted. The PRESIDENT —If the Minister quoted from a document he may table it. Senator WALSH —I quoted from Wednesday's House of Representatives Hansard and a transcript of the Channel 9 interview with Mr Johnston. I am perfectly happy to table both documents. Senator BEAHAN —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade provide any information further to his statement of 22 September on the situation in Lebanon where the present leadership crisis is causing concern to many Australians? Senator GARETH EVANS —As Senator Beahan has intimated, I did make the Australian Government's basic position on the leadership crisis in Lebanon clear in a public statement on 22 September in which I said, among other things, that the Australian Government would not lend its support or encouragement to any solution which is not based on the continued integrity and sovereignty of the Lebanese Republic. Since that time we have seen the unhappy impasse reached following the failure of attempts to hold presidential elections in Lebanon to elect a successor to President Gemayel whose term expired on 23 September. The dangers of the present situation need no emphasis. I simply express the hope that all parties to the situation will continue to act with maximum restraint and seek a solution which accords with, as I have said, the continued integrity and sovereignty of the Lebanese Republic. To this end, the only course that would offer the prospect of rescuing the situation would be to work toward a new date for presidential elections, to resume contacts based on identifying a compromise candidate, and to ensure that conditions continue that will allow the National Assembly to meet in security and good order. Senator LEWIS —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Aged Care to the interest rate assessment contained in the current Westpac Banking Corporation Economic Review, which states: `Over the next few months the likelihood is that rates could rise even further'. When does the Government expect that home buyers with deregulated loans will start paying the extra $22 a month that they will have to find on a mortgage of $55,000 if there is a rise of just 0.5 per cent, the absolute minimum that is likely to occur? Senator COOK —This is a fairly tawdry effort by Senator Lewis, during the last Question Time before the Victorian election, to score some fairly shoddy political points. Senator Lewis knows that the speculation that Dr Hewson, Mr Howard and people in this chamber have engaged in to try to talk up interest rates is a speculation in itself. I do not intend to be drawn by this silly question to answer his silly proposition. Senator SCHACHT —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What would be the effect on the Commonwealth revenue of a $56 per week tax cut on average weekly earnings? Will the Government implement such a cut? What is the source of the $56 a week tax cut proposal? Senator WALSH —Reference is made in the question to average weekly earnings or, a looser term that is used by some people, average earners. I say at the outset that there is no such thing as a precise definition of either of those concepts. Average weekly earnings are assessed as ordinary time earnings, total earnings, on the survey basis or on the national accounts basis, and there are some variations between all of those things. There is also a very substantial difference, although I believe it is not generally recognised by the public-and overlooking the other imperfections-between average weekly earnings, which is the arithmetical mean and the median income; that is, the income half of which are above and half below. The reason that I gave that explanation is that the figure that I will cite as an assumed average earner's figures, or average weekly earnings, is an income of $24,000 a year. If a person in receipt of a taxable income of $24,000 a year were to receive a tax cut of $56 a week, his taxation liability would fall by 52 per cent. In other words, the tax that he paid would be more than halved. This year's Budget estimate for total tax to be paid by individuals, net of the Medicare levy, is $43.5 billion, in round figures. If the taxation liability of all persons were to be reduced by 52 per cent-that is, the proposed $56 a week reduction for persons on $24,000 a year-tax revenue from individuals would fall by $23.5 billion. I said yesterday that the figure was about $25 billion; I have since made a more precise calculation. If that 52 per cent reduction in income tax were to be applied across the board, revenue would fall by $23.5 billion. If any Opposition senator wants a basic lesson in numeracy, I will be quite happy to take him through the figures later on. I suspect it would take quite a long time before most of them would understand it, assuming that they were at all capable of understanding it. I have been asked to explain the origin of the proposal. I had thought that the proposed $56 a week reduction had originated from Mr Peacock, who gave an interview which was published in the Australian Financial Review of 29 August 1988: In an interview with The Australian Financial Review the Shadow Treasurer, Mr Peacock, was pleased to suggest personal tax cuts-around $56 a week for average earners to make up for the absence of tax scale indexation since 1983. He would not say how large the necessary spending cuts would be or where they would be made. The spending cuts required to offset a tax cut of that magnitude would be in the order of $23.5 billion. I thought that Mr Peacock was actually responsible for this ridiculous proposition in the first place, but I found yesterday that the Leader of the Opposition, obviously not knowing what he was doing, claimed responsibility for it. He made a statement during the discussion of a matter of public importance yesterday, the alleged transcript of which he circulated. He stated: Every family in Australia, wherever they live, ought to understand one thing: that unless they get a taxation cut of $56 a week their living standards are still going to be well below what they were in March 1983, because $56 is the unchallenged calculation of the Opposition of the quantum of the fall in family living standards over the last 5 1/2 years. That figure was first used by me in addressing the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party in June of this year and it has remained unchallenged ever since. I interpolate that that is simply not true. It was challenged and, indeed, put down by me during the two-week sittings after the Budget, and again a couple of days ago. The Leader of the Opposition continued. All the resources of the Treasurer, the Finance Department, the Reserve Bank and all the other minions that surround the Treasurer and Finance Minister can't challenge that figure because it is true. I did not need the resources of the Treasury or of the Department of Finance. I made those calculations myself-$23.5 billion worth. Three weeks ago I also identified the conceptual error that Andrew Peacock had made. The Peacocks and the Howards are saying that, where nominal incomes increase, nominal taxes must stay the same, otherwise tax has gone up. That is the basis of the Opposition's conceptual error. Senator Chaney —Thank heavens you did not get any of the Treasury people to do it. Senator WALSH —I am quite happy to submit my figures for verification by the Treasury and bring in a report. I would be very happy for Senator Chaney to ask me a question about it. Senator Messner —The whole thing misses the point entirely. Senator WALSH —Senator Messner has interjected. In a series of increasingly confused personal explanations here over the last few days, Senator Messner has been trying to get the Opposition off the hook upon which it impaled itself by saying that there ought to be a $56 a week tax cut for average earners. Senator Messner —We have never said that. Senator WALSH —Mr Peacock has been reported as saying it in the Australian Financial Review of 29 August, and there is absolutely no evidence that he has claimed that that report was inaccurate. If Mr Peacock wants to run away from that, I trust that he will do so. But Senator Messner's series of increasingly confused personal explanations-he made the mistake of putting that $56 a week figure in the question-has done nothing to wipe out the $23.5 billion credibility gap. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. I know that you have been listening carefully to the answer, as I have. I think that up to this point he has been in order. But the Minister is now going off on some completely fresh frolic that seems to be outside the terms of the question that was asked. I would ask you to call him to order. The PRESIDENT —I think the Minister has finished his answer. Senator PUPLICK —I ask the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce whether he recalls answering Senator Chaney on 30 August 1988 in regard to the Government's Budget Estimates by saying, `This Government's estimates have normally been pretty right'. Does he recall that on 28 September 1988, in answer to Senator Stone, Senator Walsh said of this Government's Budget Estimates, `They are nearly always wrong'. Since the Budget Estimates cannot be `normally pretty right' and `nearly always wrong' at the same time, can the Minister explain which of these two Ministers has stumbled inadvertently into telling the truth? Senator BUTTON —Of course, one is speaking about matters of degree. When I said that this Government's Budget estimates were normally pretty right, I was making a comparison with the Budget deficit estimate, which we inherited, made by Senator Stone. Never in the history of this Government has there been a difference in a Budget estimate such as that which occurred in 1982-83 under the leadership of Mr Howard and on the then advice of Senator Stone, who at least had the integrity to draw the community's attention to that vast discrepancy. We have never seen a discrepancy like that in Budget estimates in the history of this Government. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Since Senator Button says that this is simply a matter of degree, can he tell us in terms of proximity to the truth which is, as a matter of degree, nearer the truth-that the Government Budget estimates are normally pretty right or that they are nearly always wrong? Senator BUTTON —I really would like to do a job on that for the honourable senator. I will have a look at that question and provide him with a balanced answer because that is what he requires. The burden of Senator Walsh's point, as I understood it, in Question Time the other day was to say that Budget estimates were just that-they were estimates-and that to that extent they were not projections which could be relied on to the nth degree, if that is the appropriate expression. That has always been so. Senator Chaney —A bit rubbery. Senator BUTTON —Nobody has ever used the expression `a bit rubbery' to the same extent as it was used against the Fraser Government. That is when it was invented. It was invented by a Minister in the Fraser Government about his own figures. Nobody has done that in this Government. Senator SANDERS —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I hope to refocus the senatorial consciousness on the real world with this question. My question concerns the deliberate slaughter of at least 100,000 dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific each year as a result of purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna which swim beneath and behind dolphin herds. I ask the Minister: Has the Government expressed its opposition to the dolphin slaughter to the responsible governments; namely, those of Mexico, the United States, Venezuela, Equador, Vanuatu, Spain, the Cayman Islands, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panama and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? If not, why not? Will the Government ban the import of yellowfin tuna caught in the eastern tropical Pacific until the dolphin kill ends and the level of dolphin deaths is greatly reduced to negligible levels? What other actions has the Government taken, or will it take, to help end this deliberate dolphin kill and to ensure that Australia is not involved in it? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government does pursue a policy of protection for all cetaceans, including dolphins, worldwide. We pursue this policy internationally through our anti-whaling efforts in the International Whaling Commission and nationally through State and Commonwealth legislation. We are concerned about the problem of the unnecessary incidental death of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. Because that killing takes place outside Australian waters it is difficult, obviously, to intervene directly. Mr Hayden did express the Government's concern to the Mexican Foreign Minister, Mr Sepulveda, on 27 July when the Mexican Foreign Minister was in Australia, and I have asked that similar representations be made to the other governments mentioned in Senator Sanders's question. We are at present exploring the possibility of working with other like-minded conservation nations-for example, New Zealand-to help end this unnecessary dolphin kill. I will certainly take into account the views of Senator Sanders and others in the community who share the Government's and my concern with this issue. Senator BURNS —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is the Government concerned about the effects on the national economy of any return to high spending policies by the States? Is there any evidence of a possible return to a high spending policy in any of the States? Senator WALSH —The Government is very concerned about the effects on the economy of a return to high spending policies by the States or, indeed, by some future Commonwealth government and is concerned, in particular, about expenditure blow-outs that are not matched by revenue increases. When the two are put together-that is, an expenditure blow-out which is not only not matched by a revenue increase but accompanied by a revenue decline-the Government is doubly concerned about the effects. I have been asked: Is there any evidence of a possible return to a high spending policy in any of the States? The answer is yes, there is a danger of that happening if Mr Kennett should become leader of some sort of a ragtag coalition government in Victoria. In the Australian of today an article by Lim Say Boon lists a number of expenditure promises made by Mr Kennett and a number of taxes and charges which he has promised to forgo. Most of these items, incidentally, I enumerated in the Senate, I think two days ago. That shows a total effect on the bottom line of the Victorian State Budget of a deficit of $511m, comprising just over $200m in forgone income through promises to reduce taxes and charges and just over $300m in promises to increase expenditure. I will go through the major items on the expenditure side: the promise of an extra $53m in education spending; an extra $116m in health; $30m in housing; $70m on police, and $35m on transport. As I suggested earlier, if any government chooses to increase expenditure and is willing to match that increased expenditure by a greater revenue effort with a commensurate increase in revenue, that is fiscally respon- sible. It is not fiscally responsible to promise to increase spending without increasing revenue. That is fiscally irresponsible. To promise to increase expenditure substantially whilst simultaneously promising to reduce revenue is doubly fiscally irresponsible. That is fiscal ratbaggery as advocated by the Federal Opposition ever since it has been the Opposition, and advocated presently in Victoria by Mr Kennett. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. Is the Federal Government now supporting the setting up of a National Crime Authority (NCA) office in Adelaide? Is it proposed that an additional member of the Authority be appointed to head the office and that the legislation be amended accordingly? Does the Federal Government support the granting of a specific reference on official corruption in South Australia? What portion of the financial costs of the proposed Adelaide office will be borne by the State Government? Senator TATE —I say by way of preamble that I am very confident that the South Australian Government will take every step as resolutely as possible to root out such corruption as may exist within the law enforcement agencies of South Australia and, indeed, to set up such conditions as would prevent-- Senator Hill —It has done its best to avoid its responsibility in this area. Senator TATE —Senator Hill is the shadow Minister for Justice. I should have thought he might ask the question rather than Senator Teague but, if Senator Teague is acting as Senator Hill's substitute, Senator Hill should let him ask the question and make the interjections. I was saying that I believe the South Australian Government has the resolution and the will to root out such corruption as may exist within the South Australian police force and to set in place measures to prevent the emergence of such practices, which undermine the confidence of the public and of the community in the very agency which it should have utmost confidence in as to its integrity for the upholding and enforcement of the law which the community formulates through its elected representatives. In relation to matters which have occurred over the last week or so, the fact is that the South Australian Attorney-General, Mr Chris Sumner, has approached me to see whether the Federal Government would support the setting up of an inquiry or even an office by the National Crime Authority in South Australia. That is a matter which, under the present legislation, the South Australian Government is required to place on the agenda of the intergovernmental committee. That mechanism would have to be put into operation before the National Crime Authority could be asked to come into South Australia in relation to a matter arising under South Australian law. Even at the request, as I say, of the South Australian Government it cannot be done absolutely unilaterally. As I have said, the South Australian Government has been carrying out some preliminary discussions and when a formal request is made that full mechanism will be implemented. Senator TEAGUE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. This matter is on the front page of this morning's newspaper in South Australia and it is the first sign of the South Australian Government doing anything positive about an NCA office. I ask the Minister the same question I asked him originally: What is the Federal Government's position with regard to an NCA office in Adelaide? Given that the South Australian Attorney-General said yesterday that the State Government has `decided to make a financial contribution' to the cost of that office, by paying it to the Federal Government, what proportion will the South Australian Government be making to that office? What is the answer to the other parts of my questions? Will there be an additional member of the Authority? Will there be an amendment to the legislation and so on? The PRESIDENT —Order! To the best of my knowledge that is exactly the same question. The Minister can answer it if he wishes. Senator TATE —It is not a supplementary question at all. I have tried to explain to the honourable senator that there are procedures under the present statute which must be gone through before this matter can be referred to the National Crime Authority if that is the outcome of the present preliminary negotiations. So all the detail of any arrangement would still have to be worked out. As to the Federal Government giving a response off the cuff, that would be most improper. I have had conversations with the Authority this morning and I think that obviously that is the correct procedure to follow. Senator JONES —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories been drawn to a report contained in the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 28 September, with the headline `US seeks world ban to save ozone layer'? Does the report reveal that the United States Environmental Protection Agency has called for a total ban on the use of chemicals it believes are destroying the earth's ozone layer? Is there, as the article implies, a growing concern amongst world experts that the situation is more serious than has been previously recognised? Will the Federal Government be seeking to strengthen the provisions of the protocol in light of the new scientific evidence and the alleged claims of the United States Environmental Protection Agency that only a total ban would meet the urgency of the situation? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am aware of the article that appeared in the Australian Financial Review regarding chemicals which destroy the ozone layer. The article claims that the United States Environmental Protection Agency believes that a 50 per cent reduction in chemical use, required under the Montreal protocol, does not go far enough given a growing consensus that the threat to the ozone layer is more serious than previously recognised. Senator Richardson announced on 12 July that the Government is proceeding with the drafting of legislation to control ozone depleting substances. It is intended that this legislation will be introduced into Parliament this session. The legislation will provide for two areas of control of ozone depleting substances-namely, controls on supply and controls of applications. Initially, the control of supply will be in line with the provisions of the Montreal protocol which was concluded last year. On the matter of controls on applications it is estimated that the use of available alternative substances and technologies can reduce the consumption of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in Australia to the order of 50 per cent by 1992 and that substantial further reductions will be achieved as new alternatives become available. On the question of United States involvement, we welcome its activities in this area. The Government is not convinced, however, that an immediate total ban is either necessary or appropriate given the need for CFCs and halons use in some essential applications and given that there is a lack of conclusive scientific information on the extent of that problem. Senator McGAURAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that 15 farming families per week are leaving the land in Victoria and that 4,685 farms have been lost during the last six years of the Cain Government? Is he also aware that rural unemployment in Victoria in this same six years has increased by 90 per cent from 25,100 to 47,800? In view of these tragic statistics, why has the Government discriminated against the rural sector in eligibility for social welfare assistance and why has the Government walked away from its responsibility to rural unemployment? Senator WALSH —I am aware that in the 1930s about 28 per cent of the Australian labor force was employed in agriculture. In the early 1950s that figure was 14 per cent and now I think it is just over 6 per cent. I have heard that sort of bleating that has just come from Senator McGauran coming from Country Party politicians for as long as I can remember. The reason that I despise the Country Party to the extent that I do is that it alone made a virtue of ignorance. Not even the Liberal Party of Australia, with the possible exception of the very recent period, ever actually made a virtue of ignorance. Only the Country Party, now the National Party of Australia, has made a virtue of ignorance. For many years as a farmer I was disgusted by the then Country Party. There were some 80,000 dairy farmers in Australia and the obvious truth was, confirmed by the McCarthy report of 1960, that the only way that the majority of those dairy farmers could earn a decent income would be to move off the land. Senator Button —Into the motel industry. Senator WALSH —This was in the 1950s and the 1960s, a time of full employment, Senator Button. It would have been in the interests of the great majority of them to move off the land, to get themselves a decent job, and probably get enough for the farm to buy a house in a regional centre or even a city and have a much better life for themselves and their families. What did the Country Party tell them? Did the Country Party tell them that? No. The Country Party said, `All that stands between you and destitution is the butter subsidy and you have to keep voting for us or the butter subsidy might disappear'. Senator Puplick —Mr President, I take a point of order. There are requirements under the Standing Orders for relevance in this particular matter. Senator McGauran has asked specific questions about the current failure of and maladministration by the Cain Government. The Minister is deliberately not addressing his mind to the question of the maladministration and incompetence of the Cain Government. The answer that he is giving at the moment is in no way relevant to the question that was asked. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister is in order. Senator WALSH —The question referred to the movement of people out of agriculture-five families a week or whatever it was. I am supplying some highly relevant background information. The Country Party said to many of these dairy farmers, most of whom had extremely low incomes, `All that stands between you and destitution is the butter subsidy. All that protects the butter subsidy is the Country Party'. The Country Party was not concerned about the welfare of the people it purported to represent. The Country Party was concerned about maintaining a sufficient number of Country Party voters living in particular areas to provide electoral fodder for Country Party politicians. Of course, the focus on butter was, for industry structural reasons, very unsound as well. In the end, the number of dairy farmers halved and halved again and I think it is now down to about 20,000. So inevitably these forces took over. However, the point is that Senator McGauran, in the late 1980s, is still peddling the same rubbish that the previous generation of Country Party politicians peddled in the 1950s and the 1960s-that is, that everything must be done to stop people moving out of agriculture, regardless of what the economic pressures to do so may be. That is not a view that Senator Stone ever supported when he was Secretary to the Treasury and I am sure, privately, he does not support it now. But I suppose that, looking at his position as Leader of the National Party in the Senate, he would not dare say that publicly. The Country Party has not changed its spots since the 1950s and 1960s, as is evidenced by that question. Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(2.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to authorise payments in 1988-89 arising out of arrangements agreed to by the Commonwealth and the States at the 12 May 1988 Loan Council meeting for the payment of: interest free capital grants to the States (including the Northern Territory); and funds which the States and Northern Territory may nominate as being for the purpose of public housing, which are provided as loans on the same concessional terms and conditions as set out in the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. The $621 million payable to the States and the Northern Territory under this Bill in 1988-89 will be distributed in line with the shares applying to the State Government's Loan Council programs and general purpose capital assistance to the Northern Territory in 1987-88. No provision is made in this Bill for payments for the Australian Capital Territory. However, provisions in Appropriation Bill No. 2 allow for analogous payments to be made to the ACT Trust Fund. The Commonwealth agreed at the Loan Council meeting that half of the $621 million would be provided as capital grants, with the States being able to nominate the remainder as loans for public housing, which the Commonwealth will provide on concessional terms and conditions. Any part of the loan component which the States choose not to nominate will be provided as loans at market rates of interest. Concessional loans for public housing under these arrangements have been available to the States since 1982-83. These loans supplement the specific purpose grants for housing made under the Housing Assistance Act 1984, which implements the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. Accordingly, the Bill provides that as a condition of the making of these loans a State must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purpose of the Housing Assistance Act. Subject to that, the loans are provided on the terms and conditions set out in the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, and hence will bear interest at the highly favourable rate of 4 1/2 per cent per annum and will be repayable over 53 years. Although the same level of assistance will be provided to the States and Northern Territory this year as in 1987-88, it is to be provided on a more concessional basis. As I have indicated, one half, rather than the one third which was the case last year, will be provided as grants. The increase in the grant component has brought about a corresponding decrease in the loan component for public housing. The Commonwealth indicated at the Loan Council meeting, however, that in so far as possible the States should apply the additional grants to expenditures on public housing. The Bill also provides for advance payments to be made in the first six months of 1989-90, up to a limit of half the total amount payable in 1988-89, of amounts expected to become payable under similar legislation in that year. The Bill forms an important part of the Commonwealth's overall financial assistance to the States and the funds available for expenditure on public housing. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator GILES —This morning I committed the unpardonable sin of missing a division. Opposition senators-Shame! Senator GILES —On this occasion there may be a reasonably good excuse in that I was caught in a malfunctioning lift for 25 minutes-with three small children, incidentally-and it was not a particularly pleasant experience. I did make the effort, through the speaker system that is in the lift, to inform my Whip, but by the time that message got through the system the doors had closed. I hope I will be forgiven. I guess it means that most of us will be avoiding lifts whenever possible when moving to divisions. The PRESIDENT —There will be maintenance carried out on the lifts next week, as well as work on the sound system. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Boswell proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The Government's neglect of the average worker as evidence by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(2.04) —I bring this matter of public importance before the Senate because I believe that this Government must be reminded of the responsibility that it has to the average working family, and the average working man and women, which it has neglected over the past five years. How many have been left homeless, how many are poor and how many are unemployed? One out of every five of our young people has not got a job. How many people are queueing for hospital beds? How many workers cannot afford to clothe, house, educate and feed their families? A cursory glance at any of our economic indicators would show the pattern of neglect that this Australian Labor Party Government has inflicted on Australia since it took office. Far from advancing the welfare of the blue-collar worker, the one income family person-this Government's historic and traditional base-the Australian Labor Party today is pursuing policies that are allowing a system of social and economic apartheid by neglecting the average worker and his family while favouring big business and big unions and pandering to the whims of vocal and radical minority groups in order to stay in office, groups such as the greenies, the feminists and all those types of other odds and sods and remnants. It has neglected the welfare of the worker and family people in Australia. Let us look at housing. The cost of buying a home has nearly doubled under this Government. The first home owners scheme funding has been cut. The number of people on waiting lists for home purchase assistance stands at 79,000. More than 60,000 people have joined the housing queues since this Government took office. The Government has pursued policies to advance welfare housing rather than allowing the average Australian to own his own home. In 1984 the average monthly home repayment was $335-based on an average home loan of $33,000 at 11.5 per cent over 25 years. In 1988 the average home loan repayment is $620-based on a home loan of $55,000 at 14.5 per cent over 25 years. It has doubled in four years under this Labor Government's mismanagement of housing. Home ownership is less affordable today than it has been at any other time. I am glad that Senator Walsh, Minister representing the Treasurer, is here. It requires an average annual income of $39,500 to qualify for a home loan. Yet the average worker, not the mean average that Senator Walsh went into so much detail to explain to us today, earns only $34,500 a year-and that is a considerable amount of money. What about the $17,000 people? What about the $23,000 people? They have been completely neglected. The Government has reduced the first home owners scheme so that a family with one child receives only $2,000 in deposit assistance. In 1981-82 Commonwealth funding was split 46 per cent for purchase assistance and 54 per cent for public housing. In 1986-87 it was reduced to 27 per cent for people purchasing their own homes and 73 per cent for welfare housing. We have longer queues for welfare housing and the dream of all Australians to own their own home is fast fading away. In this country people deserve the right to own their own home. This country has everything to offer and yet we cannot provide a home to people unless they are earning an income of $39,500. They are the only people who are eligible to own their own home or to receive a home loan. We see that this Government has called for a review of housing initiatives. It has floated proposals such as a wealth tax on homes over $300,000 and a capital gains tax on the family home. There are 40,000 people permanently homeless in Australia today. There are 60,000 people living on the verge of homelessness in caravans and the backs of cars under family homes. Is this what the blue collar worker deserves? Is this what the workers deserves from this Government? Let us leave housing and go to education. Who would have ever thought a Labor Party government would legislate to introduce charges for education? Where is the egalitarian spirit of the Labor Party in discriminating against children in rural areas by imposing assets tests which restrict their rights to an education? Senator Panizza —It is an utter disgrace. Senator BOSWELL —It is an utter disgrace. In Question Time today, when Senator McGauran tried to raise a matter of extreme importance to the rural electors of Victoria he was castigated by Senator Walsh in the most insensitive attack I have ever heard in this Parliament. Senator McGauran was trying to bring the plight of the farming community before this Parliament. He was abused and castigated by Senator Walsh. What Senator McGauran was trying to tell the Senate was that 15 farming families per week are leaving the land in Victoria and that 4,680 farmers have left their farms or been forced off their farms in the last five years. Taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product has continued to rise despite the promises of the Labor leaders. It is not the Brierleys, the Bonds and the Holmes a Courts of this world who are paying, but the workers and their families. There has been a litany of extra taxes and charges imposed by this Government-taxes and charges which mean that it can be rightfully awarded the title of highest taxing government this country has ever known. The millionaires of this country have got their tax cuts, but what about the workers of Australia? They have to wait until July next year before they get their tax cuts. And this is the government of the worker; the government of the battler! The Government has neglected its base shamelessly. Let me remind the Senate that in March this Government introduced a pensioner assets test which caused so much hardship to rural Australia. The Government has never cared for farmers. This was the hardest knock that this Labor Party has ever inflicted on the farmers. I see that Senator Panizza agrees with me. In 1985 the Government raised the prescription fee by $1 to $5. What happened then to all the people who needed prescriptions? It meant another $4 every time the average worker went to get some cough medicine or other medicine for his kids. This is the most insensitive government that Australia has ever seen. The Government has removed the Medicare levy limit. It has imposed the fringe benefits tax. It has imposed new and increased sales taxes. Furthermore, the Government increased the excise on petrol and diesel fuel by 3c a litre. It has increased tax on wine to 20 per cent. It has imposed a 10 per cent sales tax on flavoured milk, fruit juice, non-alcoholic wine and cider. But the lowest thing the Government has ever done is tax the kids' ice-cream. That is how low the Government has gone: it has taxed the ice-cream of kids in Australia. I look at Senator Bjelke-Petersen here and know that she is very concerned about this matter. She is a grandmother and she knows what it is to go and buy her five or six grandchildren an ice-cream. She can probably afford it but there are a lot of grandmothers out there who cannot even afford to buy their grandchildren ice-creams because of the absolute meanness of this Labor Party Government. The Government has abolished the family allowance for dependent students aged 18 to 24 years. It is means testing the allowance for 16- and 17-year-olds. In December 1986 the Government increased the Medicare tax levy from one per cent to 1.25 per cent. In January 1987 the Government imposed tertiary fees of $250 per student. Where were the ethics, the philosophy and the ethos of the Labor Party Government? Income testing on family allowance for joint incomes of $50,000 a year and above has been imposed. The maximum benefit for the first home owners scheme has been cut by $1,000. There have been new superannuation taxation arrangements introduced. Commonwealth funding to non-government schools is to be cut by $12m over the next three years. The patient contribution to pharmaceutical benefits has increased from $10 to $11. I could go on and on but I would need an extension of time to read out this litany of increased taxes. Beer excise has been reduced, but sales tax on beer has been increased; tertiary education fees have been replaced by a new graduate tax; and family allowance funding is to be cut by $39.2m through assets testing. The total tax revenue for 1988-89 will increase by nearly 10 per cent to a record 25.7 per cent of gross domestic product. Despite the increases in taxes and cuts in essential programs, Government spending has increased and it is forecast to rise to a massive $82 billion-an increase in 1988-89 of over 4 per cent. What do the workers have in common with this group of people that wants to destroy 2,500 jobs in the Queensland rainforest areas? It is absolutely shameful that this Government is destroying those jobs in the tableland area of Queensland. Those 2,500 workers trusted the people opposite; they paid their union fees and sent unionists down here to represent them in the Parliament, only to have their livelihoods removed, to have their jobs and their families destroyed. What sort of workers party has the Australian Labor Party degenerated into? Where are the unionists in here? I will tell you where they are-they are ashamed to come here, they are ashamed to listen to this Government because it has destroyed the workers' livelihoods. It has neglected its base, it has neglected the unionists and now those opposite are running a government for the high and mighty. Senator Hill —And the powerful. Senator BOSWELL —Yes, and the powerful. The Labor Party and the workers have always worked together in the past to fight for greater justice and a higher standard of living. But that is the past. Where are the champions now? Where are the men and women who slogged their way up through the ranks and, through pure grit and determination, came here to represent the working men? Where are the Ben Chifleys, the Mick Youngs, the Eddie Wards, and the Clyde Camerons-the shearers and the train drivers? The most endangered species in the Labor Party is the working man. Who do we have here who represents working men? Senator Devlin is a worker. Senator Hill —Are there two? Senator BOSWELL —No, Senator Devlin would be the only one who has ever picked up a tool in anger in his life. Senator Devlin is a worker; he does represent the working man. While Senator Collins and Senator McMullan are waiting to get on the front bench they should form themselves into a task force and actually go out and try to recruit a few working men to represent the people. Senator Puplick —They wouldn't know where to look. Senator BOSWELL —If they do not know where to look, I will tell them. The workers that Labor represents are being reduced to living in eight-square dogboxes on cement bases. They work 40 hours a week for which they bring in about $250. Out of this they pay $120 rent. They are the people who want representation in this Parliament. They do not want the machine men, the Labor Party bureaucrats-the doctors, the solicitors and the barristers. The Labor Party should have a sprinkling of them, but how about putting in a few workers to represent the real workers of Australia. Because those opposite do not understand this, let me cite the following case: I rang one of the social workers connected to the party yesterday and I asked, `What is the true story up there?'. She said she would give me a typical case that happened to her this morning. A seven months pregnant woman with a toddler at her heels had come in to her community centre for budgeting assistance for the week. Her husband brings home $280 net a week. They pay $110 a week rent. Because he has to move around for on site work he has to have a car, so take off $50 a week for petrol and another $50 a week for the car payments. This leaves $60 a week for housekeeping, food, clothes, medical expenses, electricity and so on. There is nothing left for the new baby and certainly nothing for services such as transport. This family has been put on the Housing Commission list, which is miles long. Meanwhile these people, who are battling and trying to do the right thing, trying to provide a future for their family, are living on welfare hand-outs. With all the sincerity I can muster, I say that this is a shocking indictment of a Labor Party government that has been in office for five years and has neglected the working men and women of this nation. The financial pressures being placed on families are enormous, resulting in high divorce statistics and child poverty. This year one in every three marriages will end in divorce. In 1982-83, an average family paid 14 per cent of its income in tax. This now stands at an alarming 19 per cent-but that does not cover the tax on the milk, the ice cream, all those sorts of food items, and other items such as bathroom fittings, tools and so on. Studies have shown that the basic weekly cost of a child-keeping a child or caring for a child-ranges from $34 for a two-year-old to $92 for a teenager. Senator Hill —Who can afford it? Senator BOSWELL —Very few people can afford it. This Government has made it a financial sacrifice for a parent to be home with children: the dependent spouse rebate is worth 32 per cent less than when this Government came to office. It is a disgrace that this Labor Party has so neglected its base. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is more at home in the board rooms of the multinational rich than he is with the working class men and women who put him into parliament. He has neglected those people. Let me quote from the report of a session of the Poverty Conference in Melbourne in April this year: Policies were said to have created massive corporate success and produced a split in Australian society that has forced large sections of the working class into poverty, and in many ways added to the creation of crime. The author of a paper on child poverty and crime built a picture of a culture of affluence for a minority in Australia. Contrasted with this was a very different reality for many people, demonstrated by increasing welfare dependence, personal bankruptcy, indebtedness, real wage reductions and unemployment. That is this Government's legacy of the last five years. However one looks at it-from the point of view of tax, housing, welfare or medical services-this Labor Government has failed the people of Australia and has failed its grass roots support, the working man and woman of Australia. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(2.23) —This matter of public importance, which has been raised by Senator Boswell from Queensland, alleges that there has been a decline in the living standards of the average worker over the last five years. Of course, it is a work of fiction, and I am sure that one of the selectors for the National Party of Australia, Mr Ralph Hunt, who is in the gallery would have been rather disappointed by Senator Boswell's performance this afternoon. If Senator Boswell is to stay on the front bench he will have to do a lot better than that because one of the selectors has been watching him. It is the height of hypocrisy for somebody from the coalition to get up in this chamber today and claim that living standards in Australia have declined over the last five years. The Opposition's record in government from 1975 to 1983 shows that, contrary to boosting living standards of ordinary Australians, the reverse applied. In fact, there was a massive reduction in living standards. At the end of the period of Mr Howard's control of the Treasury in 1982-83 we had double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, with inflation and price rises of 11 1/2 per cent per annum. We had unemployment peaking at a seasonally adjusted figure of 10.4 per cent as a result of those policies, which were very harmful to the living standards of ordinary Australians. In the last 12 months that the Liberals were in government 186,000 Australians were thrown on the industrial scrap heap. That is the record of the Liberal Party in government: 186,000 ordinary Australians were thrown out of work in a 12-month period. The man who now leads the Opposition in this Parliament, the man who is the Leader of the Opposition, was the Treasurer who presided over that period when 186,000 Australians were thrown on the industrial scrap heap. The Liberal Party in government deliberately used unemployment as a tool to regulate the economy. The facts show that the higher the inflation rate was in the community the more the then Government tightened the screws on the economy to raise unemployment to try to get inflationary price rises out of the system. That was the record of the Liberal Party in government. Today a coalition member comes into the Senate and raises a matter alleging falling living standards. (Quorum formed) As I pointed out, we are debating a matter raised by an Opposition senator, Senator Ronald Boswell, concerning alleged falls in living standards. For the edification of those people listening to this broadcast, I point out that that quorum was called by Senator Newman from the Liberal Party. She called a quorum during debate on a matter raised by the Opposition, which shows the lack of argument available to Opposition members to defend the matter that has been raised by one of their own. Senator Newman —Mr Acting Deputy President, would you kindly draw to the attention of the honourable senator that it is up to him and his Government to keep the numbers in this House? It is not up to the Opposition. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator MAGUIRE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. One of the reasons for calling quorums in this place is to reduce the amount of time available to the speaker. The Opposition has made this tactical move this afternoon because it does not like what I have been saying. Members of the Opposition know that they are going to cop more. They are very frightened and have called a quorum during debate on their own matter of public importance to reduce the amount of time available for debate. Senator Boswell —Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. I brought before the Senate a very important matter that I wanted addressed and debated. I do not want the calling of quorums debated; I want the essence of the matter of public importance debated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! What is the point of order, Senator Boswell? Senator Boswell —Mr Acting Deputy President, my point of order is that Senator Maguire is not debating the matter of public importance but is debating why quorums are called in this place. If that is the basis of his argument, I suggest you call him to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that we are debating a matter of public importance. I ask Senator Maguire to debate the matter of public importance and to continue his speech. Senator MAGUIRE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. When Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this country the inflation rate was 11 1/2 per cent per annum and was eroding the living standards of average workers at a rapid rate. Under the present Government, inflation has been reduced to an annual rate of 7.1 per cent-an enormous reduction in inflationary cost rises under the Hawke Government. The unemployment rate was 10.4 per cent early in 1983 when Mr Howard was the Treasurer of this country. So there was double digit unemployment as well as double digit inflation. Today the unemployment rate is 7 per cent. I am sure that there is an undeniable lift in the living standards of Australians who have come off the unemployment register into work. When we came to office in 1983 we pledged to create 500,000 extra jobs in a three-year period. The Opposition, of which Senator Boswell and Senator Newman are members, scoffed at this claim. It did so because it had not been able to create any jobs at all in the eight years it had been in power. In fact, in the last year of the Fraser Government 186,000 Australians were thrown out of work as a result of coalition policies. That was the basis on which the Opposition scoffed at our pledge. I would like to turn to the question of income tax. For years the Liberal Party of Australia has paraded itself around this nation as the low tax party. Time and time again it has claimed on the hustings that it is the low tax party. Let us look at the taxation record of Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition in this country, when he was Treasurer. Mr Howard brought down five budgets from 1978 to 1982 inclusive. When he left office the lowest income tax rate in this country was 30c in the dollar. That was the record; that was the fact. Today the lowest marginal tax rate in this country is not 30c in the dollar or 29c in the dollar-it is 24c in the dollar. That is the record of this Government in reducing tax rates. Look at the middle tax rate that was bequeathed to the Australian Labor Party by Mr Howard when he was Treasurer. Average workers had to pay 46c in the dollar. Forty-six cents was taken from every marginal dollar earned by taxpayers in this country when Mr Howard was the Treasurer. Today the rate has been reduced not to 43c in the dollar but to 40c in the dollar. That is a very significant reduction. Let us look at the amount of tax free income that was available to taxpayers when Mr Howard was the Treasurer in this country. At that time the threshold for tax free income was $4,595. Today that figure is $5,100. So under this Government there have been two very significant reductions in tax rates and a very significant rise in the tax free threshold. Of course, further income tax cuts are on the way. In fact, nine months tomorrow significant reductions in income tax will be made in this country. My estimate is that those cuts will be between $15 and $20 a week. There will be a very significant reduction in personal income tax paid by ordinary Australians. That will have a significant effect on disposable incomes because reductions in tax rates, in tax paid per dollar, have a much bigger impact on disposable incomes than on nominal wage rises. So those tax cuts will have a significant corresponding effect in terms of money wage rises. Let us also look at the record of Mr Howard when he was Treasurer in the field of indirect taxes. I am talking about taxes other than taxes on wages and salaries and company profits. Let us look at the area of consumption tax. We all know-in this Parliament and outside-that the Liberals favour a consumption tax. They are all in favour of taxing ordinary commodities bought by average Australian families. That is the way in which the Liberals would reduce living standards if they ever had the chance to occupy the treasury bench in this Parliament. It is important to note that the two major tax exempt areas of commodities in the Australian community are food and clothing. They are essentially free of any indirect tax at the moment. The only way in which a future Liberal government-if there ever were such a thing-could get substantial extra revenue from taxing commodities would be by taxing the areas of food and clothing. These are the areas in which they could obtain the most revenue. We could then find the Liberals taxing such vital things as children's shoes, bread and everyday food items which are exempt at the moment but which are under the shadow of Mr Howard's taxes. We all know about Mr Howard's record as Treasurer. He was the Treasurer of this country in 1981-82. He brought down the Budgets in those two years when the biggest ever rises in indirect tax occurred in this country. In 1981 he lifted every one of the sales tax rates by 2 1/2 percentage points. In 1982 in his last Budget he followed that with a further rise of 2 1/2 percentage points in every sales tax rate. Senator Tambling —I raise a point of order. I draw the Chair's attention to the matter before it, which is: The Government's neglect of the average worker as evidenced by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years. I point out that Senator Maguire has not yet mentioned that period of five years and I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to draw his attention to the motion before the Chair. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You are correct in noting the words of the matter of public importance which is before the Senate. I have been listening carefully to Senator Maguire and I ask him to continue his speech with the words of the matter of public importance in mind. Senator MAGUIRE —As I pointed out earlier, the calling of quorums is an Opposition ruse to reduce speakers' times and so is the calling of points of order. I have already addressed the question of income tax reduction by this Government. I have mentioned it, but I will do so again because we have a very good record. When the Opposition was in power the lowest marginal tax rate in this country was 30c in the dollar. That was the record when Mr Howard was Treasurer. Today, as a result of the policies of the Hawke Government, the lowest tax bracket rate in Australia is not 30c in the dollar but 24c in the dollar. I thank the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to repeat that point. One of the most important things that we have done in office is getting rid of the free lunch. That was a very important move taken by this Government in 1985. We decided to tax subsidised lunches which were available to an elite section of the Australian community. The revenue that has come from removing that unacceptable rort has been made available to ordinary Australian workers-the people about whom Senator Boswell has been bleating this afternoon-in the form of reductions in personal income tax. That is where the revenue has come from which has enabled us to reduce taxation for ordinary Australians. This was a rort involving an elite group in the community, an elite of pinstriped, big city businessmen, the people at the big end of town, who were subsidised by ordinary Australian taxpayers. I wonder whether people realise how much that rort cost every year. What was the revenue involved in allowing this small group to have subsidised lunches? When I ask people this question they say, `Oh, perhaps it was about $3m a year'. I say, `No, make it a bit higher'. They say, `Well, perhaps it was $30m' and I then tell them, `Make it higher still'. People cannot comprehend that the free lunch that was protected by Senator Boswell and all those who sit on the Opposition benches was costing $300m a year. That is what we, the ordinary Australian people, were paying in tax to subsidise that group. I sat here and debated this matter with Senator Boswell, Senator Watson and others who made the most idiotic statements in 1985 and 1986 about the effects of ending this rort. Senator Boswell went around Queensland and around Australia saying that we would have to repay the free lunch. That is what Senator Boswell is reported in Hansard as having said, as are Senator Watson and a number of other senators here who spoke in favour of retaining that unacceptable rort which meant that ordinary Australian taxpayers were being milked to the tune of $300m a year to help the big end of town. They are the people that Senator Boswell stands up for-the pinstriped big city businessmen. It is all very well for him to shed crocodile tears about Australian workers today but it is all in the records. His idiotic statements on defending the free lunch are in the record. Senator Boswell —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I made a very worthwhile statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —What is the point of order? Senator Boswell —The point of order is that I have never uttered anything that was idiotic in this House. I call for a withdrawal; it is unparliamentary. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask you to resume your seat, Senator Boswell. You have the right to stand at the conclusion of Senator Maguire's speech-being the preceding speaker-to make any personal explanation. On the question of the word `idiotic', I do not believe that in the past that word has been regarded as unparliamentary. Senator Boswell —On the point of order-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have already ruled on the point of order. Senator MAGUIRE —Again we have had another tactical ruse to try to reduce the amount of argument that can be put forward to destroy this most regrettable motion moved by the Opposition this afternoon. In the two minutes available to me I would like to point out that one of the major areas in which this Government has assisted working families has been in the introduction of the family allowance supplement which, essentially, is for working families. It is for payments to families whose head is in the work force. At the moment the amount of money payable per child is $22 a week for younger children and $28 a week for older children. That money will be increased to $24 a week in December for younger children and $31 a week for children of 13 years and over. Those payments are tax free, so the actual real effect on household disposable incomes is much more significant. In addition to that scheme we have introduced the first home owners scheme. Senator Boswell bleated on about housing but the fact is that over $1,000m-I repeat, over $1,000m-has been paid out under the first home owners scheme to get low and middle income earning Australians into housing. Honourable senators should look at the building approvals in the last 12 months. There has been a 43 per cent rise in Australian building approvals in the last 12 months. Already 298,000 Australian families have been assisted by that program. For the sake of those people listening in Victoria today I mention that 76,000 applications have been approved in that State-a very significant boost to housing. An amount of $278m was spent. The facts I have put forward give the lie to these claims that the living standards of Australian workers have been destroyed in the last five years. I reject this matter of public importance. It is hypocrisy for this coalition to even suggest matters like this. It destroyed living standards in 1982. We had negative real growth in the economy and 186,000 Australians were thrown out of work in 1982. We have had the legacy of Mr Howard, the present Leader of the Opposition, as Treasurer. We have had growth under Labor. With a million more people in the work force in this country, most in the private sector, there must have been an increase in the living standards of ordinary Australians. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(2.44) —The matter of public importance brought on by the Opposition today states: The Government's neglect of the average worker as evidenced by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years. I suggest to Senator Boswell, who introduced this matter, that to give real meaning to this debate it should not simply be limited to the average worker but include the average Australian whether or not he or she is employed. Sadly, neither the Government nor the Opposition can lay claim to having put forward policies which would lead to an improvement in living standards of the average Australian. If we are to define the role of government as one to reduce inequality in our society by providing income, education, health and social security services to those in need, then the Government has failed. For instance, we have seen proposals to introduce tertiary fees which will restrict rather than improve access to what was once free education. We have seen the Treasurer (Mr Keating) bring down a Budget with an unprecedented surplus of $5.5m, largely funded through pay as you earn tax revenue. The Government continues to fund a health system which adheres to the outdated concept of traditional high technology, high cost, curative medicine rather than to cheaper and far more desirable preventive models of health care. Nor has the Government managed to ensure that the benefits of economic prosperity are shared and enjoyed by all. The Government has been prepared to allow ordinary Australians to contribute more tax through bracket creep while at the same time lowering company tax rates from 49c in the dollar to 39c in the dollar-a move to be followed by a similar reduction in personal income tax rates at the top end of the tax scale. All of this has taken place over the past five years under a Labor government. The mind boggles at the prospect of the coalition taking office now that it has been pushed so far to the right by Labor's policies and by the New Right, which is charting new frontiers in dry policies. In light of this it is ironic, if not hypocritical, as Senator Maguire suggested, that the Opposition should raise this matter of public importance as its concern for the well-being of the average Australian is hardly credible. The Australian Democrats believe that it is high time the Government undertook meaningful tax reform which will benefit all Australians, including those most in need, rather than the large corporations which make strange bedfellows, I admit, and as Senator Boswell has said, with the Labor Party and its dogma. To raise the living standards of the average Australian the Democrats say that the Government should raise the tax threshold to avoid poverty traps, should eliminate tax loopholes which allow effective corporate tax rates to be as low as 10 per cent and should stop increases in taxes on basic food items and other necessities of life. Senator Maguire qualified his claim that foodstuffs are exempt from tax. Senator Boswell chose to forget-to be charitable-the fact that he and his coalition colleagues colluded with the Government to introduce taxes on fruit juices and flavoured milk, which are food products. It will be interesting to see what they do when the new range of taxes on food products comes before this Parliament and Democrat amendments are moved. The Senate needs to be reminded of some facts concerning tax policy which affect the Australian people. Australian companies enjoy the second lowest tax burden of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, yet this Government is still soft on company taxation. Only 10 per cent of Australia's population owns 60 per cent of the total wealth. Over the past 10 years the contribution to total revenue by companies-by the corporate sector-has fallen from 17.8 per cent to 12.7 per cent, whereas the pay as you earn (PAYE) taxpayer has increased his or her contribution to 55.8 per cent. Meanwhile, there is no doubt that the living standards of average workers have declined over the last five years. The average worker earns less in real terms but pays more in tax and more for food, housing, gas, electricity, transport and most other purchases. The average worker also has less access to government services, such as health care, education, social security supplements and child care. They will have even less access to these services if the policies which are being proposed by the Government continue to be pushed through. As a result of partial wage indexation and delays in implementing the second tier, 4 per cent productivity increase, there is little doubt that the bulk of the Australian work force has suffered a decline in the real value of wages since 1983. The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union has calculated that people on an annual pre-tax income of $25,000 a year have suffered a 10.7 per cent fall in the value of their wages since March 1983. John Halfpenny has claimed that real wages have fallen by 22 per cent since 1983. By the middle of 1988, some 50 per cent, or just over 50 per cent, of the work force had still not received the second tier productivity increase proposed by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision in March last year. Of that 50 or 51 per cent of the work force, the largest proportion are women, as Mary Owen recently pointed out in an interesting analysis of the effect of the second tier system. She also pointed out that this is because women are clustered in the less powerful unions, the lower paid jobs and are often outside the union-protected section of the work force. I quote from an article by Edna Ryan in this month's Women's Electoral Lobby National Bulletin: It is inconceivable that the Government (and, for that matter the ACTU leaders who supported it) were not aware of the consequences of negotiating direct with the employer. It seemed that low paid workers or weaker unions without much power, were not expected to get the 4 per cent at all. Edna Ryan issued a warning in that article. I think that it is an important warning, considering that this matter of public importance has been put up by the Opposition whose policy and whose actions in the Parliament this morning have been directed very much to freeing up that system; to breaking down the present industrial relations system. Edna Ryan said: This is a serious warning to oppose collective bargaining in place of the industrial arbitration system. Those people who speak of ``freeing up'' the labour market mean just that-collective bargaining. Only the strong unions in essential industries stand much chance of keeping wages up with the cost of living. While it is true that wages have dropped under Labor, the Opposition seeks constantly to deregulate the labour market; to crush unions so that wages can drop even further. That is what Senator Boswell and his colleagues engaged in in this chamber today during the debate on the industrial relations legislation. They want to give employers the power to continue to reduce wages, which would be the inevitable result of collective bargaining while we have high unemployment-that is, if the Opposition in government were successful in dismantling the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Cutting the unemployment benefit is another of its policy goals. I quote from an article entitled `Social justice and the low paid worker' by Flora Gill of the Department of Economics at Sydney University: Inequality of bargaining power is perhaps not an urgent issue when the labour market is very tight for a prolonged period. It becomes acute, however, when an economy plunges into a state of high national unemployment with no end in sight. With little alternative employment prospects, the low-paid worker on his own- she should probably have used the term `her'- in an over-crowded market cannot resort to a quit-threat in an effective manner. It is a well-established empirical fact that the quit rate of the work-force drops sharply as unemployment increases. The need for protection, therefore, especially for the low-paid worker, is even more urgent if we are resigning ourselves to having a significant level of national unemployment for the foreseeable future. That represents a considerable warning in terms of the Opposition's policies. Previous speakers have said that the average worker pays more tax. In September 1985, in the tax cuts announced as part of the Government's tax reform package, the company tax rate was reduced. Subsequently, it was reduced to 39c. The highest marginal tax rate was reduced from 60c to 49c and the next individual tax rate went from 48c to 46c to 40c. As a result of those tax cuts, people on $15,000 a year who were paying 18.2 per cent of their income in tax were expected to have that rise to 19 per cent by 1987. Those on $24,000 at that time-that is, those on average weekly earnings-were paying 25.6 per cent as a percentage of income and that was to rise to 26.4 per cent. Those on 30,000 were paying 29.8 per cent and that was expected to drop slightly to 29.6 per cent. By contrast, those on $50,000 were paying 40.7 per cent and that was expected to drop to 37.4 per cent. In other words, the lowest paid and those on welfare benefits and paying some tax would pay more in order to finance the tax cuts for those who were better off. At the same time, Mr Keating was promising the most rigorous restraint on public sector outlays-not the Budget deficit, which has since come into surplus. That meant the social wage component of income would be falling at the same time. It was announced in the May economic statement that the company tax rate would be reduced to 39c. It is now argued that this must be followed by a similar cut in the top personal tax rate; otherwise the highest taxpayers will incorporate and get the benefit of the lower company tax rate. If the top rate is reduced to 39c, the cost to revenue for that alone will be $1,000m. There will be no benefit for the 90 per cent of PAYE taxpayers with a taxable income of $35,000 a year or less. People with a taxable income of $50,000 a year will gain an additional $1,500 a year and those earning $100,000 will gain an extra $6,500 a year. Does anyone imagine that there will be a reduction of 10 percentage points, or anything like that amount, in the tax paid by wage and salary earners? Not at all. It is not possible because the total cost would be $12 billion. The major beneficiaries of cuts to social welfare expenditure, therefore, which have produced the Budget surpluses, will not be the average worker; they will be the corporate raiders and the paper shufflers, who are allowed to make huge profits and pay little or no company tax. At the base of much of this is the Government's failure-a failure which is not criticised by the Opposition-to refuse the corporate giants the opportunity to negatively gear foreign borrowings for largely unproductive company takeovers. It is the major tax rort which this Government has left in place and which is reducing the living standards of all Australians. What is particularly galling is that Senator Boswell and his Opposition colleagues have shown no concern about redressing this problem. They support their wealthy mates. They are currently losing the contest that goes on in this place and in the political marketplace to attract the wealthiest Australians back to what has been in the past their traditional political base, the Liberal-National Party coalition, because most of the privileged have realised that a Labor government does even more to preserve and increase the wealth of the wealthiest Australians than would the Liberal and National parties. As I have said, Senator Boswell and his colleagues have voted in this chamber to restore negative gearing for property investors. They then complain about average income earners not being able to purchase homes, to realise the Australian dream. Those people are currently in competition with the speculators, the investors, at the auctions when they try to buy their homes and fulfil that dream. That negative gearing rort is also available to high income earners who want to buy shares. The Australian Democrats were the only ones who opposed it when this Government introduced the measure. It is not being done at the expense of the Alan Bonds of the world. Senator Boswell and his colleagues have also voted in this chamber to tax fruit juice and milk while the Democrats urged them to vote with us to protect the diminishing incomes of the average worker. While the Democrats agree with the substance of the matter of public importance raised by Senator Boswell, we emphasise the fact that the situation would be immeasurably worse under a New Right, Liberal-National Party government with a dog eat dog industrial relations system and a user pays community infrastructure system for health, education, communication and other services. I observe in conclusion that such a spectre also hovers over my home State of Victoria on the eve of a State election in which the Liberal leader, Jeff Kennett, and the National Party have run off a list of pork-barrel promises which top the $1 billion mark which they say will be paid for by savings-savings, presumably, on schools, hospitals, trains, roads and other services, wages and jobs, particularly jobs, as Mr Kennett has already said, in the transport industry. I am sure, however, that Victorians will reject this gung-ho confrontationist reduction in services approach which is the same approach as Senator Boswell and his colleagues would take, to the even greater disadvantage of average Australians and workers in this country. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(2.59) —I am sorry that Senator Powell does not think it would be very good under a Liberal government either. I am waiting for the day-I do not think it will ever come-that the Australian Democrats have to decide how they will spend their money. They may not be as generous when the time comes when they have to live with their decisions. In the Canberra Times on Tuesday last, Mr Kelty, Mr Keating's mate, told us that we were living in a paradise. It seems we have gone from Mr Keating's banana republic to Mr Kelty's paradise. But is it really a paradise for the wage earner? The simple answer is no. It is a fool's paradise; it is an illusory paradise. There is no paradise for the average wage earner. I will list some of the changes that have occurred in this area in the past five years. Victorians' real average weekly earnings fell by 4 per cent in the period 1985-86 to 1987-88. What is actually left to spend-and that is what counts-has been reduced even further due to bracket creep. The single income family on average weekly earnings now pays $119 per week tax compared with $65 in March 1983. It is equivalent to an extra 5.3 per cent of its weekly income going to the Government. Senator Maguire used a spurious argument when he used the base tax rate as an indicator of the level of tax being paid by wage earners. The simple fact is that inflation has pushed workers into higher and higher marginal tax brackets, so the average tax rate has gone up from 17.6 per cent in 1983 to 22.9 per cent this year. What does this mean? It means that the average family needs $44 more per week to restore its real disposable income to its March 1983 level; that is, after paying taxes, to have the same purchasing power as it had in 1983, the family needs $44 more per week. Senator Maguire —You said $56 a while ago. Senator PATTERSON —Senator Maguire needs to listen to the date. It is $44 now and by the end of this year it will be $56. In this new-found paradise the average weekly earner who has managed to get into the housing market is paying 27 per cent of his wage on his home loan compared with 19.2 per cent in 1983. Eight per cent more of his weekly income is going out and paying for housing loans. If a person is renting, the story is the same. There is an increase in the proportion of income being spent on rent. When the average weekly earner goes out to shop, the dollar does not go as far as many items are now out of reach. Twenty-five per cent fewer new cars were purchased in Victoria last year than two years before. It does not take much to imagine what reduced access to private transport means for rural people and those in outlying suburbs of Melbourne. Senator Maguire —There is an increase this year, though. Senator PATTERSON —Senator Maguire has already had his say. Anybody who runs a household budget knows how little is left after housing and transport costs have been paid for. By the way, I have not included the increase in the amount taken out for Medicare. The pay packet is even less than it was five years ago as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy. In Victoria, where people pay 20 per cent more in State taxes per head-this is supposed to be a paradise-than in other States, there is even less to spend. There are ever increasing electricity, gas and water charges, to say nothing about the soaring costs of staples such as food and clothing. This so-called paradise that Mr Kelty talks about has been achieved for workers in the unions with muscle. It has been a wilderness for people in the weaker unions and for those who are unemployed. I wonder whether members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, to whom Mr Kelty was speaking, think it is paradise. Has this largely female union, with its strong part time and casual labour force, seen wage increases to match those of the metal workers? Wage rises won by strong unions were not won on the basis of productivity through most of the 1970s and 1980s. Instead, they were won on the basis of industrial blackmail. And at what cost? The cost is clear. Let me quote from an editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Monday this week: After almost two decades, and hundreds of thousands of words of rhetoric, an important Reserve Bank research paper has effectively put to rest the hoary old issue of the relationship between labour costs and employment. The Reserve's paper comes on the top of recent assessments from the Federal Treasury and the Economic Planning Advisory Council which each back what many an intelligent person knew by intuition- there are some not very intelligent people around who did not know this- that one man's pay rise is another man's job. Clearly then this paradise has been achieved by Mr Kelty, by Mr Halfpenny, who fortunately did not make it into this chamber, and by their union mates at the expense of those who do not have jobs. What has happened to their living standards? They are the ones who have been condemned to five years `hard Labor'. Look at what the union movement has done to our young people. Youth unemployment has been consistently over 20 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis until February this year when productivity linked wage increases finally started to bite. That is what we mean by one person's wage rise being another person's job. Time does not permit me to enlarge on how living standards of those relying on fixed or unregulated incomes, such as farmers, have declined. Only last night I was speaking on the telephone to two pensioners, two of my constituents, who told me that in the last couple of years they had had to employ a taxation agent to do their tax returns, because the tax laws have become so complicated; and they really cannot afford the money it costs to employ a tax agent. This Government needs to ask the pensioners about their living standards. If it goes out and about and asks what is really happening it will be told by the pensioners. Tomorrow it will be told very clearly what the Victorians think about declining living standards. It is evident that over the past five years the purchasing power of the average weekly wage has been reduced and the living standard of the average worker has declined dramatically. What is the prognosis for the future? I suggest that it will not be easy. The Hawke Government has so mismanaged the economy that its most senior economic adviser indicated this week that, given the Government's manipulation of economic policy instruments, there is only one degree of freedom. He claimed that the only move left to shift pressure off the balance of payments is through the blunt instrument of monetary policy. Senator Parer —Higher interest rates. Senator PATTERSON —The effect of this will not be selective. The impact will affect all Australians-home owners and renters alike. The honourable senator is right; it will mean higher interest rates. Senator Parer —For the average family. Senator PATTERSON —The average family will be paying higher interest rates. Senator Calvert —See today's Melbourne Sun. Senator PATTERSON —I was just about to say that this morning's Melbourne Sun warns Victorians that they are heading for a rise of $22 in monthly loan repayments. But why is it not happening now? The Federal Government is stalling so that its mates in Victoria can have another chance at increasing taxes and charges in my State. After tomorrow's election we will see another picture because we will have a Liberal government there. It seems that, for many, Mr Kelty's paradise will be a paradise postponed until after Mr Hawke's mates have had a chance in Victoria. I am sure that the Victorian public will not be hoodwinked into believing that Mr Kelty has taken us into a paradise. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(3.07) —It is perhaps heartening that this matter of public importance has been brought forward today. Let us hope that this indicates a change of heart on the part of members of the Opposition. They say that they are concerned about the average worker. It is time that they were. They talk about the decline in living standards over the last five years. Living standards in Australia have declined over a longer period than that-well over 30 years. One of the central reasons they have declined is that the Opposition, when in government, unfortunately made choices to run down Australia's competitiveness in the industrial sector. This left us at the mercy of commodity prices which, unfortunately, collapsed dramatically in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Through the proper management of this Government-outstanding management, which has been endorsed by the Australian people on three occasions-we have helped reduce that impact. It seems from this matter of public importance that the Opposition may come along to the next national wage case and support John Halfpenny, whom it has blackguarded in such a dastardly fashion so far. Will members of the Opposition come along and say to members of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, `Living standards have fallen. We now want you to give these workers an increase in wages commensurate with-indeed, above-the consumer price index.'? Is that what they intend to do? If members of the Opposition do not intend to do that, why have they put forward for debate a matter of public importance such as this? Let us look at the reality. Let us look at how the work force reacted to the regime of the previous Government and how it is reacting to the regime of this Government. Perhaps the best test of that would be to look at the figures on industrial disputes taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They are very interesting because they show that the average number of working days lost per annum under Mr Fraser was three million and under Mr Hawke was 1.4 million. The average number of working days lost per thousand employees per annum under Mr Fraser was 590.6 and under Mr Hawke was 239. If the Opposition is supposedly the great champion of the working man and woman, why did it cause so much industrial disputation and why is it that under this Government the rate of industrial disputation has fallen to below half the previous level? A very interesting set of figures appearing in this year's Budget Paper No. 1 shows the percentage change on the preceding year of real per capita disposable income. The scale indicates how much change has occurred in the amount of money a household has at its disposal. The real income is the measure taken. In other words one could say, `How much have I got to spend this year per head on the household compared to last year?'. In the last year of the Fraser Government, 1982-83-Mr Hawke having come to power in March 1983-that percentage change was negative, a decline of 1.8 per cent. In the first full year of the Hawke Government it went to 2.6 per cent, then up by 1.1 per cent, and 1.4 per cent and then there was a decline of 1.3 per cent. Last year it went up by 0.6 per cent and this year it is expected to go up by 1.5 per cent. While this motion mentions the average worker and the decline in living standards over the last five years, it is very interesting to note that the biggest fall in recent years in disposable income occurred in the last year of the Fraser Government and ever since, apart from one year, it has increased. One of the great success stories under this Government has been the situation in Victoria. It is interesting to note what has happen there, as private business investment has skyrocketed under Mr Cain compared to what it was under the previous Liberal Government. It has gone from 0.3 per cent per annum, over the previous 10 years, to an expected growth this year of 12.8 per cent. Senator Messner —Relative to the other States though, Senator. Senator COONEY —All right, relative to the other States. I will give the honourable senator the figures. The increase in private business investment in Victoria from 1982-83 to 1986-87 was 8.1 per cent in Victoria and 4.7 per cent for the rest of Australia. According to projected Budget estimates this year, 1988-89, the expected increase in private investment in Victoria is 12.8 per cent compared with 4.7 per cent for the rest of Australia. That increase has occurred because the people in Victoria know that the Government is not going to aggravate the industrial situation, it is not going to go around with a big stick and take us back to those terrible days of industrial disputation which we experienced when government, employers and employees were at each other's throats and when disaster in industrial relations was the order of the day. Senator Watson —Didn't we have the greatest degree of disputation when Mr Hawke was head of the ACTU? Senator COONEY —For the benefit of those listening, the honourable senator said that Mr Hawke caused a lot of disputation. This is exactly what happens in these sorts of debates. The Opposition put up a debate about `The Government's neglect of the average worker, as evidenced by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years'. It then tries to show, through facts and figures, that compared to previous years people are now much worse off. I am not saying that living standards have not declined. They have declined over the last 30 years. There has been a decline. There is no doubt about that. What the figures then show is that the way the decline is managed is much better under this Government than it was under the previous Government. As soon as that is demonstrated, Senator Boswell says, `What about some other fact of the matter?'. If that was going to be the honourable senator's debate, why did he not get up and put it as a debate? Instead, the subject of the debate is: The Government's neglect of the average worker as evidenced by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years. As soon as we get up to talk about that and as soon as we start to win the debate, the Opposition says, `We want to change the debate. We want to go back to the 1970s now'. The reality is that in the 1970s strikes were the order of the day and there was a disastrous decline in the standard of living. We, fortunately, have turned that round. Mr Kennett makes the statement that he is going to get rid of 7,000 jobs. That is a demonstration of how he is going to cause industrial disruption in Victoria. He then gets concerned about that statement. What does he do? The day before the election he says, `Look, I really don't want to cause any real problems'. He realises that he must declare publicly that he will not really put anybody out of work. He says: We guarantee that under a Liberal Government there will be no retrenchments and that your position will be secure. Reductions in the numbers in the Public Service will be by natural attrition, redeployment and early retirement schemes. These are the words of a man looking for votes the day before an election. A month or two ago, when it did not matter, he was talking about getting rid of 7,000 people from one industry. When we are talking about the living standards of people we are really talking about what sort of work they have and what sort of job they are going to pursue. The leader of the alternative government in Victoria, Mr Kennett, the day before the election, finds it necessary to reassure people about what he said previously about causing unemployment in the transport industry and, no doubt, others as well. Looking for votes the day before the election, he now says, `What I said before doesn't really count'. He has also described WorkCare as Mr Jolly's folly. Talk about living standards! Here is a person who is going to take us back to a stage when there was very little in the way of workers compensation schemes. Whereas the Cain Government has produced premiums of something like 2.4 per cent, the Victorian Liberals want to take us back to the days when premiums were over 37 per cent in the meat abattoirs, over 24 per cent in the brewery industry and over 28 per cent in the sawmills and planing mills. That is the sort of regime they want to take us back to. The Opposition here talks about `the Government's neglect of the average worker as evidenced by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years'. We can point to the reduction in strikes, and we can point to the way that we have cooperated with the union movement to see Australia over difficult times. Unlike some in the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill, we have not continually blackguarded the union movement, which after all is the body that represents workers before the tribunal which decides their wages. Senator Boswell wants to take away the union advocate, throw that advocate out, and leave a person's wages to be determined by the much stronger employer. That is tragic. The honourable senator is very sincere in his approach. It is not just a matter of putting up something for discussion. He really means it. He cannot see that if he goes down the line he suggests disaster will befall us all. There has been a reduction in the strike rate in Victoria of something like 80 per cent in recent times. This Government has created over one million jobs, and a lot of those have been in Victoria. Senator Boswell —What about the workers of the Tablelands? What have you done for them? Senator COONEY —I will tell the honourable senator what we have done for them. Senator Boswell —What have you done for the timber workers in Queensland? You have cost them 2,300 jobs. Senator COONEY —I will detail what we have given all workers. That is what the honourable senator's question is really aimed at. We have given them Medicare, which the Opposition would abolish. Medicare gives all people the ability to get medical services when they need them. Do honourable senators remember the old system when people were denied medical attention because there was no Medicare? People did not have the ability to go to doctors when they wanted. We understand that what is needed is a more sophisticated and more educated body. In Australia we need educated people able to enter into a work force which will be able to produce the necessary income that we need to get out of our problems. That education was neglected under the old Fraser regime. Let us look at child-care, an essential service. Child-care places have increased under this Government, and with great help from the Cain Government, from 46,000 to 110,000. The next thing I want to talk about in the dying minutes of my speech is the family assistance supplement. Honourable senators opposite say that we have neglected the living standards of Australians. The family allowance supplement has helped over 140,000 families in Australia-each of those families having an average of 2.4 children. I ask honourable senators to reflect on that. We have given those families $22 a week for children up to 12 years of age and $28 a week for children aged 13, 14 or 15 years. In December 1988 that is to increase to $24 and $31 respectively. There will be changes to rent assistance. These were announced in the Budget to help low income families in the private market by recognising the extra cost of renting with children. Senator Messner —The interest rates on mortgages are going up by $22 a month next month. Senator COONEY —The honourable senator is talking about interest rates and the economy. In the few seconds I have left I say that the economy is better managed now than it has ever been. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Zakharov) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(3.23) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance proposed by my colleague from Queensland Senator Boswell, in the following terms: The Government's neglect of the average worker as evidenced by the continual decline in living standards over the last five years. Senator Watson —That is right. Senator LEWIS —As my colleague says, that is right. What we are talking about here is the average worker and the decline in the living standards of the average worker over the last five years under Labor governments-the Commonwealth Labor Government and Labor governments in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Let us just look at what has happened to the average worker in Australia. The Labor Party right around Australia has lost touch. It is evidenced by my good friend Senator Cooney, who spoke just before me. Senator Messner —Not any longer, I hope. Senator LEWIS —Senator Cooney is a good Labor senator; he is a very capable barrister and he has been given a brief to speak in this debate. He has tried to follow the brief, and he has followed the brief. Senator Boswell —He is from the Labor Party kamikaze squad. Senator LEWIS —Yes. He has been given a brief to talk about the average worker who, he said, is earning $24,000 a year. The Australian Labor Party keeps trying to tell us that the average worker is earning $24,000 a year. I ask honourable senators: How many average workers are earning $24,000 a year? Not too many average workers are earning $24,000 a year. They wish they were. The situation is that average yearly earnings are $24,000. That is taking into account all the massive earnings of the friends of this Government, all those big businessmen who are supporters of Mr Hawke; they are the people who take the average up to $24,000 a year. The poor old average worker under this Government, by 30 June next year, when this Government is going to give him some sort of tax cut, will be down by $56 a week since the Liberal-National Party Government lost office back in 1983. Under this Labor Government there has been a decline of $56 a week in the living standards of a single income earner with two children. That is what the Government would have to give taxpayers to restore the standard of living they had back in 1982-83. We can ask any of those average workers, who are certainly not on $24,000 a year, just what it is costing them in pay as you earn tax every week-the tax being dragged out of their pockets by this rapacious Government. Is there any other word for this Government than `rapacious'? As from about next week-some time after the Victorian election-mortgage repayments on a $55,000 mortgage in, say, the suburb of Bentleigh will increase by $22 a month, because undoubtedly interest rates will go up. They are being held down, cleverly, at the present moment but after the Victorian election home mortgage rates will rise, and that will cost the people, as the Melbourne Sun said today in its front page headline, $22 a month. The article, headed `$22 rise tip', begins: Home loan payments are almost certain to jump an average $22 a month in the next two weeks. If honourable senators do not accept the Melbourne Sun, this is what the Melbourne Age had to say: Home loan interest rates are likely to rise within the next few weeks . . . This month's Westpac Review says: There appears little, if any, chance of lower short-term interest rates until well into 1989. Indeed, over the next few months the likelihood is that rates could rise even further. If we really want the icing on the cake, in Berlin Treasury Secretary Bernie Fraser embarrassed the Government by saying that he expects interest rates to stay high and perhaps go higher. Senator Parer —At least he is truthful. Senator LEWIS —Yes, at least he was truthful. This Government has been endeavouring to maintain lower interest rates just to help Mr Cain in Victoria get over his election on Saturday. The front page story in today's Australian Financial Review states: These statements are official-speak for, yes, the Budget forecast is looking very sick . . . Even sicker is the expenditure explosion under the Cain Labor Government. After seven Labor Budgets expenditure has increased at an annual rate of 3 per cent in real terms. Under the Cain Labor Government in Victoria every year there has been an increase in expenditure in real terms-not nominal terms-averaging 3 per cent. I ask the people of Victoria: Are you any better off, do you feel any better off, as a result of seven years of this Government? When I asked Senator Cooney what he had done for the workers, he said, `Well, we have given them Medicare'. Yes, this Government has given us Medicare. There are 25,000 people on the waiting list for surgery in Victoria alone. We all know what Medicare is costing us, because not only are people paying for Medicare through their tax every week but most know that the only way they will get any medical service in this country is, in addition, to have some sort of medical insurance. So it is costing most of us double. Frankly, I am appalled at what the Cain Labour Government has done to the State of Victoria. It has dashed near bankrupted Victoria. It has sold off over $1 billion worth of assets, but it has not used that $1 billion to pay off debts. If a Government does use such money to pay off debts, we could consider that the Government was being responsible. It has not done that at all. It has used that $1 billion for the wages and salaries of its increased number of public servants. All the Cain Labor Government has been doing throughout its period of seven years in office is increasing the number of public servants. The result of its expenditure explosion is that the Victorian Budget deficit has virtually trebled under the Cain Government. I remind honourable senators that in 1988-89 the Commonwealth has budgeted for a surplus of $5 1/2 billion. The Commonwealth, with control over the economy, with control over the finances, is budgeting for a surplus. What is happening in Victoria? The Victorian Government is budgeting for a deficit of $1 billion, with not a word of criticism from the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), not a word of criticism from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Honourable senators might recall that they criticised Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland when he was running into an election. But so far as Mr Cain is concerned, there has been no criticism at all from Senator Walsh or Mr Keating, notwithstanding the disgraceful Budget from Mr Cain. Every Australian knows the burdens of debt currently being carried by Labor governments right across Australia. Fortunately, we got rid of the Labor Party Government in New South Wales and tomorrow we will get rid of the one in Victoria. The normal aspirations of life of ordinary Australians are slipping away under the Labor Government. It always happens. It happened in 1973-75 and it has happened again under this Labor Government. The Labor Party does not understand that people need something to work for, something to look out for, something to put away for their old age, something to save for-a holiday, the future. This Government, which is totally out of touch, thinks it can control people's revenue and expenditure. It thinks it can rip it off people with one hand and pretend to hand it back with the other and that people will be satisfied with this. Under a Liberal-National Party government Australians will be given the opportunity to do what they want to with the money they earn. Senator Tate —You are admitting a coalition defeat. Senator LEWIS —I was talking about a Federal Liberal-National Party government; this is a Federal chamber. We are trying to keep this matter on a Federal level. Let there be no doubt what Mr Kennett is on about in Victoria. He is about giving people a chance to achieve their aspirations. According to the figures, there are more than 60,000 Australians living on the verge of homelessness and 40,000 Australians apparently sleeping in refuges, emergency accommodation or in the open. The number of families queuing for public rental housing in Victoria has doubled to 30,000. Who would invest in a rental house under the Cain Government in Victoria? If a person had a house left to him by a deceased parent, he would not keep that house as an investment and put in a tenant because there is nothing in it for him under the Cain Government. The rental would be so controlled and the terms and conditions of the tenancy so controlled that his legal adviser or accountant would advise him to get rid of the property and find some other sort of investment. That is why there is a shortage of rental housing in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia. Labor governments keep imposing such restrictions on landlords that people say they would rather invest their money in some other form of investment. People have stopped investing in ordinary houses and stopped giving others the opportunity of renting those houses. Until we free up that market there will always be a shortage. Since 1983 the average wage earner's living standards have declined by 10 per cent. Much of this burden is borne by Victorians. We just have to ask the voluntary agencies such as the Salvation Army, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and St Vincent de Paul and they will tell us that with all the resources they have they are absolutely strained to the limit. Victorians now pay 20 per cent more State taxes per head of population than people in any other State. Senator Boswell —Is that why they are going to Queensland? Senator LEWIS —Let me acknowledge that the figures show that in Victoria State taxes per head of population are $1,081, in New South Wales they are $889, in South Australia they are $732, and in Queensland they are $525. I have said that Victorians pay 20 per cent more in State taxes than people in any other State in Australia. And do Victorians feel better off as a result of that? Are they getting more out of this Government, or is it just that there are more employees under Mr Cain? Victorians have the highest rates of payroll tax, the highest rates of land tax, the highest rate of stamp duty on land transfers, and many other stamp duties and other State taxes. The massive financial mismanagement by the Cain Labor Government is almost unbelievable. Senator Messner —Even Don Dunstan had to leave. Senator LEWIS —Yes, but let me go on as I have only one minute left. The Cain Government in the run-up to the Victorian election has got to the stage of running ads which lampoon John Elliott by using Mr Max Gillies. But Mr John Cain will not debate the Victorian Liberal leader, Jeff Kennett, in public on these issues. He wants to run lampooning advertising campaigns with his media liaison group, paid for by the Victorian taxpayers, to conceal the real issues of the election. The people of Australia woke up during the referendum questions, and Victorians have woken up in the course of this campaign and tomorrow we will see Jeff Kennett elected as the leader of Victoria for the next four years. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(3.37) —It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on the so-called matter of public importance proposed by Senator Boswell. It is interesting that I have more time than was originally scheduled because so many of the Opposition speakers could not find enough argument to sustain even 15 minutes in support of this piece of nonsense. (Quorum formed) Unlike the Opposition, fortunately I will not have any trouble filling in the time. Senator Lewis did not need to help me out by calling a quorum to try to stop me speaking on this matter. But the fact of the matter is that anybody who has listened to any of the arguments from the Opposition will know that there are only three problems with the matter of public importance proposed by Senator Boswell. It is economically illiterate, it is insincere, and it is irrelevant. First of all, let me talk about sincerity. We suddenly find this new-found concern about average workers. We have seen crocodile tears from members of the Opposition on this subject. The only time that people on the Opposition benches ever see an average worker is when they call him into their office to sack him. They have never actually met one working on the job. Their only contact with workers is when they are trying to cut their wages. They do not have any concern about average workers. They think they have found some statistics that they do not understand and so they have tried to make a cheap political point. I suppose the redeeming feature of the matter of pubic importance is that it is irrelevant. Senator Lewis was an example of its insincerity and irrelevance. The honourable senator enthusiastically tried to speak in defence of the average worker, but the only passion he worked up was in defence of people who invest in housing in Victoria. He told us how sad it was that they were constrained by legislation that protects tenants. Not too many average workers would share his concern, even if he got his facts correct. The matter of public importance is irrelevant for two reasons: firstly, we are fortunate in that we are not going to be afflicted with the policies of the Opposition; and, secondly, in none of the three speeches from the Opposition was there one positive point about what ought to be done. In the few minutes I have left I want to make two points about economic illiteracy. Members of the Opposition do not understand the difference between the points that Senator Walsh has made so effectively in the last two Question Times about the increase in household disposable income per capita and the so-called statistics about living standards which they are trying to drag up. They fail to understand that two things that are not in their figures are reflected in the household disposable income figures in the Budget. Those figures show that in the last six years there have been four years of increases and two years of declines, the biggest decline being in the last year of the Fraser Government. The differences are twofold. Firstly, there are a million more people in jobs now than there were when this Government came to office. Average workers are actually better off because they are in employment. The people that the Opposition would like to put out of work know that they are better off. They are in a job and they intend to stay in a job. The second element that is not reflected in the Opposition's statistics is the family allowance supplement, so effectively described by Senator Maguire and Senator Cooney. In the time available to me the last point I want to make about the Opposition's economic illiteracy concerns the continuing carping on the fact that the Secretary to the Treasury has said that the only tool the Government has left is monetary policy. Fortunately, I know that Senator Boswell and others would not know the reality: if we do not use monetary policy, there are only two other choices-wages policy or fiscal policy; that is, we would have to cut either wages or government expenditure. It is impossible to conceive how we could improve the living standards of average workers if we cut either of those. No-one on the Opposition side was able to understand that point, so members of the Opposition did not have to address it. At least they did not have to face the intellectual challenge of asking, `How am I going to accommodate this difference?'. In the brief time that remains I want to say that I know the people of Victoria will have the wisdom to see through the transparency, inadequacy and illiteracy of the argument that was put by Senator Boswell. I have appreciated the opportunity given to me as a result of the inadequacy of the Opposition speakers to speak for a few minutes. I have enjoyed that opportunity. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Teague) —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 3.45 p.m.