Senator CRANE (5:35 PM) —I too join this debate on the motion now before us, which relates to industrial relations and employment policies. I think it is rather ironic that just over three to four years ago we were on the other side of the chamber leading a similar charge, if you like, trying to prove that there were better ways to deal with unemployment. But the difference between then and now is that, under the coalition government, there have been very significant improvements to the rates of unemployment. For a while, I just want to deal with that trend. So let us look at the figures.

I do think this debate requires a little bit of balance, rather than the political point scoring that continually goes on in this place. Unemployment is a serious problem. It is something that most, if not all, Australians have been seriously touched by through their family or friends—but certainly most of us, from time to time, have been touched through our families.

We find that there has been a certain theme in unemployment going right back to the 1980s coming into 1981, before the previous Labor government got into power—it got particularly bad in 1983 when they came into power—and then we had those horrific years 1992-93-94, when it was consistently stuck at over 10 per cent and went to 11 per cent.

I believe that the difference between our approach and that of the Labor Party really and truly is one of philosophy. We believe that the best way to deal with unemployment is to make sure that we have a strong economy, successful businesses and stimulus for small business; and in time—and I think the facts are starting to prove this—job availability will go up.

I particularly want to look at this aspect—because I believe it is important. We can see that from 1994 to 1995, before we came to power, unemployment dropped from 10.5 per cent to 8.9 per cent. We can all quote figures to suit ourselves; we can take a month, we can take two months. That is not my intent.

The point I want to make here is that the drop in unemployment at that time was almost entirely due to what occurred in Western Australia after the Court government came in. Looking at the figures during that time, and anyone can analyse them very carefully, we went from having the highest level of unemployment when Carmen Lawrence was the last of a series of Labor premiers—it was at well over 11 per cent; I think it got up to 12 per cent at one stage—but, by the end of 1992 and going into 1993, Western Australia's unemployment rate had dropped to the lowest in the country. That was almost the total take-up of the jobs that were created during that time for all Australia. That was stimulated almost entirely by the opening of some great mining projects in Western Australia and getting some of the red tape out of business's way and allowing business to expand and employ people. That is what our philosophy is.

I want to work through some of these issues. I have been on inquiries and wrestled with these problems, as Senator Tierney mentioned. I wish to comment particularly on a couple of contributions made here today: firstly, that by Senator Rosemary Crowley, who referred to the very unfortunate comment, she claimed by a Liberal, about there being only one place for women—barefoot, pregnant and back in the home, or words to that effect.

Senator Crowley has not thought very hard about that. She obviously is not aware of what happened on 11 March in the other place. Apparently Janice Crosio, the member for Prospect, interjected on Minister Moylan, saying, `Go back to the kitchen.' It went a little further than that. Minister Moylan came back and spoke on indulgence—and I do not understand all the detail of the standing orders of the other place and how they operate. Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, Australia's alternative Prime Minister, got himself involved. He said:

The minister is known on our side of the House as `Go back to the kitchen Moylan'.

That came from your leader. Mr Beazley also said:

That is why that was proposed. `Go back to the kitchen Moylan' is your nickname—

Senator Neal —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. This debate is not an opportunity for members of the chamber to make reflections on those in the other House. I think the senator on his feet should restrict himself to the debate at hand. Clearly he is in breach of the standing order that prevents senators making reflections.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Patterson) —There is no point of order.

Senator CRANE —The point that I was making in this very important debate is that it is pretty damn dangerous to throw stones in glasshouses because they will bounce back at you.

Returning to the issue of reducing unemployment, regardless of what is said we know that since we came to power there has been a gradual trend downwards in unemployment—and there has been further good news today. It is not going down as fast as I or anyone on this or the other side of the chamber would like, but it has been consistent and sustained. That is important. I believe that it is going to remain consistent and sustained.

Senator Neal —You have economic growth of below four per cent. It will not go down.

Senator CRANE —You can rabbit on all you want but you have had your go. You are a policy-free zone over there.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Crane, direct your comments through the chair. You will get into less trouble if you do.

Senator CRANE —Madam Acting Deputy President, I will take your guidance. I must inform you that we have a policy-free zone over there. Those opposite come in here and rabbit on and carry on, but they never tell us what they are going to do. Are they going to go back to Working Nation? That is what I want to know. A week or two ago former Prime Minister Bob Hawke apologised to the Australian people for the recession that we did not have to have. There are all sorts of things we can talk about.

Senator Neal —So what is your objective in terms of employment levels? What is your target?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Neal, you are not helping by interjecting.

Senator CRANE —The people over there presided over the most sustained, long-term period of unemployment in this country. We have set about endeavouring to do something about it through sound economic policy and management. Had the previous government not run up that enormous $10.3 billion deficit, we could have made even more remarkable inroads into unemployment than we have. It is my very strong view that, with sound policy and development of initiatives as the Australian accounts come back into balance, unemployment will fall even more.

Let us look at a few of the issues which are very important in dealing with these things. One of the principal reasons we had that sustained period where unemployment ranged from nine to 11 per cent is that during the 1980s our average inflation rate was eight per cent. Today that rate is down to nearly 1.4 per cent. Business, the people who employ—small business in particular—know that they are now in a very sound inflationary position in terms of expanding their businesses and making good economic decisions which will create sustainable long-term jobs—not mickey mouse jobs.

The next point I would make relates to the impact interest rates have had—again, a very important point—and what is happening in that arena. Looking at the current situation as against that when we came into government, mortgage rates were 10.5 per cent and today they are around 6.5 per cent. For a $100,000 mortgage that is a saving of $80 a week. Taking another measure which I think is very important and will allow people to invest more and help the business community, the average mortgage is around $120,000. That represents a saving on interest rates of about $100 per week or the equivalent of a wage increase of $150 a week. It is these policies that I believe will allow Australia to be in a sound economic position to continue to, albeit slowly, make inroads into unemployment.

One of the other initiatives which is very important and which will protect Australian jobs and create them—this needs mentioning, because it did not get much coverage at the time—is our new anti-dumping measures. Those on the other side and in the other place had some 13 years to deal with anti-dumping. I have a document which I will read so that I get the facts absolutely right. It states:

Under the new arrangements interim duties can be imposed after 60 days. The time taken to reach a final finding will be reduced to 150 days and the Anti-Dumping Authority, ADA, will be abolished.

That means it will be put under one roof. That is absolutely crucial in terms of protecting Australian industry, both in dumping and in countervailing situations, from subsidised imports coming into this country. There is no doubt at all that some of the products that have come into this country have hurt Australian businesses greatly and they have created situations where there have been a job loss, a very sad and unfortunate job loss. So we are seeking, in terms of dealing with that particular issue, to get that impediment out of the way and secure Australian jobs and increase the number of Australian jobs.

I will now go through a couple of other points that I think are very important in terms of protecting Australian jobs and making sure that we get our equal share of what is available around the world, in particular in Asia. I repeat what I said in here last week: I am not one of the doomsday merchants about Asia and what has happened there. I think it is quite tragic the way some of the journalists have decided to write it up. Maybe that is a little unfair on the journalists. It is some of the commentators who talk to the journalists about the situation in Asia. At the end of the day, we are going to see two things in Asia. The first is a much stronger financial system, which is absolutely crucial to those people doing business with Asia. The other is that, although it will be a slower growth rate, it will still be in the four per cent to seven per cent area, which will be close to leading the world as we move beyond the year 2000.

These things are all very good indicators in terms of the employment position. Australia's part in this, and I must highlight this, is our support with the IMF in terms of assisting those particular countries not through gifts, not through grants, but through loans and currency swaps, assisting them at this time through their financial difficulties. These are the types of initiatives we require in this country to sustain—and I emphasise that very strongly—the slow improvement that we are attaining as far as unemployment is concerned.

I particularly mention a little bit about training. I have my office in East Victoria Park. Parts of that electorate have some of the lowest socioeconomic areas of any electorate in Australia. It is the Swan electorate. The member is Don Randall. It was formerly held by the current Leader of the Opposition, whom I mentioned earlier. We were sick and tired, and so were the young people coming in, of the fact that they repeatedly said, `I've been trained once; I've been trained twice; I've been trained three times.' Some of them had been trained up to seven times and still did not have a job. All the training in the world will not get them anywhere unless there is sound economic policy behind it.

Having said that, I firmly believe that the more training, the more assistance and the further we can upgrade our education processes around the country, the better. It is absolutely essential that we do that. But at the end of the day there must be some hope. There is nothing more soul destroying than to be trained two or three times and still have no hope of getting a job because you have been trained in the wrong areas.

Senator Neal interjecting—

Senator CRANE —You were the absolute specialists at it. You trained them without a job at the other end. It is absolutely crucial in terms of this that the two are matched. There is a very important initiative in terms of that, and I will quote from a press release. I was going to make a little comment with regard to one component of Senator Stott Despoja's contribution today when she was critical of the work for the dole scheme. My experience with the people involved with the work for the dole scheme is that they are very proud to be able to do something in return for the assistance they are getting from the Australian taxpayer. That is my experience with the people I have talked to about it. I quote from an article today in the Advertiser . It is headed `Work for the dole scheme: a stepping stone to success. Youngsters break into the jobs world'. I will just read the first paragraph. It states:

A north-eastern suburb's work for the dole scheme has been so successful that three of the 14 young participants building bus shelters have landed jobs within three weeks.

It then goes on to talk about the training in terms of their ability to build the bus shelters; their ability in joining, sanding, welding, design and all the various other things they are learning. That is a very good endorsement of the fact that there is a place in Australian society today for a work for the dole scheme, and that proves it. It is not the be all and end all. It is not the only answer. That is why we have introduced some flexibility into the system for people seeking jobs.

Regardless of what anybody in this place might think, not all CES offices worked as well as they might have. During that unfortunate period when we had a lot of over-45-year-olds lose their jobs, the last place they wanted to go or be seen to go, because of the psychology of it, was to a CES office. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact of life. Whether you think it is right or wrong, that is a reality. In introducing some competition, some alternatives, you are going to allow a much wider scope of people to have varying opportunities and hopefully—and I believe there will be—increased opportunities.

I want to come back to where I started in the remaining two or three minutes I have. There is no question that unemployment is a very difficult issue for Australia. It is coming down, albeit slowly. It is a very difficult problem for most Australians. As I said earlier on, they have been touched by unemployment through a partner, their family, in some instances their parents. It is very traumatic. But there is one last thing that I wish to leave in terms of this particular debate and how we can effectively assist in this process, and that is a piece of legislation that is coming up here very shortly. I refer in particular to our 10-point Wik plan and the importance of getting that legislation through this parliament. Once that is through and we can get rid of some of the deficiencies—and I am not talking about the High Court decision here; there is nothing being removed in the 10-point plan Wik legislation that was delivered by the High Court—it will get rid of some of the inventions that were created by the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and the then Senator Gareth Evans, who is now in the other place.

The most appalling of those inventions is the right to negotiate and the way that has been handled. I heard from one of my Aboriginal friends the other day who said, `It sounds all right on the surface, but it is the overlapping claims, the extortion, the fact that whoever happens to negotiate gets all the money, buys their four-wheel drive vehicle and then skips town.' I am sure Senator Chris Evans over there has heard these stories in terms of what is happening on the ground. It has held up project after project throughout much of Australia, and particularly in my state of Western Australia.

There are many economic opportunities there if they are allowed to be opened up and developed. The 10-point plan is part of doing that. It will increase the opportunities for jobs; it will increase exploration, mining and exports—these are the things work will come from. Finally, it is also absolutely crucial in terms of investment on an existing property that we get certainty back into title. This issue exists and has made a lot of people very cautious about what they do at this particular time as far as their investment and expansion are concerned. Where titles for exclusive possession have been granted, that should be made absolutely crystal clear in the legislation. We should get rid of this nonsense of claims over private land and claims over land where exclusive possession has been granted.