Senator BUTTON (Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(12.34) —I would like to thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. I indicate at the outset that the Government will not support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Chaney on behalf of the Opposition. While Opposition senators were speaking I was reminded of these lines from Tennyson's poem Ulysses:

Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'

gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades.

For ever and for ever when I move.

The Opposition has had some nasty experiences in the last few months, and I understand that. But the objection seems to be on the one hand that the Government has moved quickly on this issue while another speaker has put the view that the Government has moved slowly on the issue. Honourable senators opposite cannot even make up their minds about that question.

Senator Chaney started off by saying, `Look, we thought of this in 1984 and we had a rethink in 1987'. It is all very well to think about these things. Government Ministers have been thinking about these things for some time too. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that there was no agenda of the Government in relation to these matters, that was absolutely correct. It was not duplicity. Individual Government Ministers have thought about these things and, of course, have discussed them for a very long time as it is quite natural for Government Ministers to do. One is not debarred from thinking on the basis that one is a member of this Parliament. Of course, Government Ministers are not debarred from thinking any more than the Opposition appears to be. So, if I may say so, the sort of churlish approach to this legislation adopted by some Opposition senators in the course of their contributions is really disappointing.

Senator Chaney gave a revisited version of his Bonnie Prince Charlie speech, of the government in exile. He went on to chastise the Australian Labor Party for doing some of these things, as he says, for factional reasons. Goodness me, what would Neil Brown say about all that? What would Senator Chaney say? Only a month or so ago he was touted widely as the only suitable person to be the Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. He modestly on television awaited the call, which he did not get. These things happen in political parties, and I do not retreat from that for one moment. I think the honourable senator should recognise that, having been here for some time.

Senator Chaney —You are not prepared to touch on the issue of a bit of honest debate?

Senator BUTTON —It is all very well for Senator Chaney to come in here and spout motherhood cliches about honest debate, to occupy the position of the moral minority in Australian politics, which he does, and make a virtue of all that and say that other people retreat from honest debate but that only the Liberal Party here is capable of honest debate. I thought that Senator Powell made some telling comments about that. Political parties change their views from time to time. Is that dishonest? I do not know whether it is dishonest or not. I would not have thought so. I do not make these high sounding moral judgments in the political arena as the honourable senator did in his speech. We do not retreat from honest debate. It is just that in this particular period of political history we do not have much to debate with, and that is a tragic thing for the Australian community.

A number of issues were raised by various senators. I found the discursive discussions by Senator Tate and Senator Durack interesting. I was intrigued to find that Senator Short had heard of Petronius and was prepared to quote him. I did not find that contribution or, indeed, the contributions from Sir Paul Hasluck as being particularly relevant. Nobody disagrees with that. Senator Short's speech was full of allegations about politicisation of the Public Service, vast growth in Public Service numbers, and things like that. All are totally unsubstantiated allegations. It is true that in the first two years of this Government, the size of the Public Service increased significantly. That has not been so in the last two years. In fact, I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister's statement of September last year on streamlining of the Public Service and the number of initiatives that have been taken by the Government to reduce Public Service size in the past year or so. There is no point in coming here in 1987 and attacking the Whitlam Government. I thought that honourable senators opposite would have got over that in the last period of opposition. I do not see much point in that.

I thought the punch line of Senator Short's speech was his comment that the `mind boggles'. I would have thought that that was not an entirely new experience for him. I thought his mind was boggled before he started. I think to come in here and say that his mind boggles at what the Government has done in terms of streamlining departments, reducing the number of departments, streamlining administration and so on is slightly overstated and absurd. The honourable senator then indulged in a little fantasy about overlap and duplication and whether particular Ministers would get on well together, and things like that. It is in his political interest that they do not. He ought to realise that. We are quite happy that they will. However, if his Party has to face three more years in opposition, one of the best things that could happen to him would be for Ministers not to get on well together. We are prepared to take the risk of that and he ought to be as well because it may give his Party an opportunity that it has not exercised in the last three years.

Senator Short says, `We want to make sure that we get it right'. So the Opposition wants to have a go at it in a Senate committee to make sure `we get it right'. What does the Opposition really want? Does it want us to get it right or does it want the confusion that the honourable senator predicted in the course of his speech will take place? The Opposition has to make up its mind what its sordid political priorities are in respect of that particular issue. One could go on debating these issues but I am not sure that there is any point in doing so because, in a decent debate, one has to be able to get one's teeth into something. There is nothing in the speeches from Opposition senators in connection with the two pieces of legislation before the Senate.

I want to refer briefly to some serious contributions that were made to the debate. First of all, I have had the opportunity of discussing with Senator Powell of the Australian Democrats the amendment which they will move in the Committee stage of the legislation. While the Government will not support the amendment, we fully support the spirit of it and I will give some undertakings in relation to that in the committee stage.

Senator Harradine raised an issue which he has raised on a number of other occasions. First of all, let me mention the question of bioethical issues which are the responsibility of Senator Ryan as Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. A number of bioethical issues arise in the health portfolio in terms of administration. In relation to those issues, Senator Ryan will have the responsibilities which have been reposed in her. However, the human rights legislation, for example, will still be within the purview of the Attorney-General. Nothing which this Government does in a legislative way will be affected by that allocation because these matters are ultimately dealt with by Cabinet before legislation is brought forward.

Senator Harradine's important point was in relation to the question of youth. I am not trying to denigrate the point I have just referred to in saying that. However, the point that Senator Harradine gave most attention to was the question of youth employment in the Australian Public Service. Senator Harradine will be aware of the Budget Speech made last night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in which the question of youth unemployment was again addressed. The Government is increasing funding for traineeships from $14m to $45m in this Budget, providing for an extra 13,000 new trainees. At the same time, there will be a new program at a cost of $31m to provide short term vocational training opportunities for unemployed young people. I could refer to a number of other matters in the Budget Speech which relate to this issue.

Senator Harradine, in the course of his remarks, drew attention to the fact that in 1966 junior employees constituted 22.2 per cent of the Public Service and that by 1985 the number had declined to 5.5 per cent. I am advised that 1966 was a peak year-an artificially high year in terms of the recruitment of junior employees. I just want to draw attention to one or two factors which influence representation of youth as permanent officers of the Australian Public Service. First of all, there have been changes in education patterns which have seen an increased proportion of youth completing final year high school. This has resulted in an increase in the average age of young people applying for appointment to the Public Service.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m.