Senator BISHOP(5.55) —As I rise to speak on this occasion as a senator for the State of New South Wales I am deeply conscious of the honour that has been bestowed upon me. I would like to place on record my thanks to the voters of New South Wales for their confidence, to the President of this chamber and to other honourable senators, and to officials and staff of the Senate itself for the courtesy and help that have been extended to me.

For me this is the fulfilment of a schoolgirl aspiration. At the age of 17 I decided that I wished to pursue a political career. I have asked myself many times why I chose politics so early and I can say only that it came from a study of history. History showed me that the world had two groups of people: firstly, it had those who were part of the decision-making process and actually had some say in the direction that the nation in which they lived took. The second group of people were those who had decisions made for them. I determined that I wished to be part of the decision-making process.

Again at the age of 17 I chose to join the Liberal Party. I chose it for a very specific reason. It stood for the things in which I believed and, indeed, in which I still do believe. In particular, it espoused four freedoms: the freedom of the individual, the freedom of choice, the freedom to pursue excellence and the freedom to seek reward for effort. In the Liberal Party those freedoms were available equally to men and to women. So it is with a little pride that I stand here as a little bit of history-that I should have become the first elected woman senator for the State of New South Wales, the mother of all parliaments. I have also asked myself why it has taken so long and I have answered: `It is the strength of the competition'. I console myself in the comfortable knowledge of the excellence of the contribution made by senators who have preceded me.

I come to this chamber with areas of specific interest and areas in which I feel I have gained some expertise. My major area of interest is the Pacific Basin, our own region. Since the early 1980s I have been a member of the Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC). In the last 12 months I have been a member of the executive of the Australian committee of that Council. It is a private sector organisation which comprises national committees of Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the United States, Canada, Korea and Taiwan, with a regional committee that covers the states of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the Andean states, the Pacific Island states, and the Latins so that they, too, can have a choice in this important body.

The words and the terminology that I use in the pursuit of lessening protectionism and lowering tariff barriers as well as non-tariff barriers are `freer and fair trade', as distinct from `free trade', which in the current world is an impossibility. No nation will ever relinquish all of the controls it uses, be it the mechanism of realigning its currency, dumping, or various mechanisms that are not seen as being tariff barriers themselves. At the meeting of the PBEC in Seoul last year I had the honour of chairing a session entitled `Trade Initiatives in the Pacific Basin'. On that occasion I was able to give to an audience which largely comprised Japanese and Korean delegates a paper which looked particularly at the question of agriculture and the barriers to trade in agriculture. It was important on that occasion to make the point, as I did, that if we are to see freer trade in our region it is necessary for Japan and the newly industrialising countries which follow in her stead to open their barriers and allow reciprocity which will permit the sort of trade which allowed Japan to grow to prosperity in the post-war period through a lessening of barriers and the growth of manufactured goods. It is interesting that the resistance to that argument is lessening at successive meetings. I was in San Francisco this year when again the question of agricultural trade was raised in forums with Japanese and Korean delegates. Finally, the rhetoric is beginning to change.

In recent years in Australia we have particularly felt the effect of protectionism in the area of agricultural trade. Between the years of 1973 and 1984 we saw the European Economic Community, by the use of its common agricultural policy, go from being a net importer of food to being a net exporter of food. In the 1980s we have felt the effect of subsidised wheat exports on our markets and we saw the bipartisan group of parliamentarians go to Washington to put our case for the United States not to export subsidised grain.

Our problems really began in the 1970s. The oil shock of 1973-74 and the recycling of OPEC dollars led to a very high growth particularly in the newly industrialised countries and the lesser developed countries. During that period there was enormous growth. The volume of trade in agriculture in those countries developed by 34 per cent and in lesser developed countries by a staggering 120 per cent. So there was planning in the major food producing countries. There was increased investment in research and development and in grains themselves. There was increased development and investment in acreage. There was a general belief that prosperity in the trade of food would continue to grow. Although the volume of trade had grown by 34 per cent, the price of that trade had also increased to 34 per cent. Thus we have reached the situation in the United States now where the debt that has been escalated by farmers, which in turn has put banks which are dependent on agricultural business at risk, has resulted directly from that recycling of OPEC dollars back in the early 1970s.

The growth came to an end with the world recession in 1981-82. It was then that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to reschedule loans of debtor nations. It required two fundamental changes in policy by those debtor nations. When looking at the World Bank and the IMF, it is interesting to see the degree to which those organisations are becoming involved in the internal policies of member nations. It is quite a serious and growing problem. In the period 1981-82 when the debt crisis became great it required, firstly, that the debtor nations become self-sufficient in food and, secondly, that they cut back on imports. They did that very effectively. The growth in our export of foodstuffs from the developed to the developing world was largely based on a change of taste with a developing middle class. When these factors were phased out and debts had to be met, they were very effective in becoming self-sufficient in food again and in cutting back on imports-mainly ours. We now have the classic result of protectionism. We have stockpiles of agricultural products. We have declining commodity prices and we have a clamour for additional protection.

Historically, we can look back even further to the inception in 1947 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In 1947 agriculture was covered by the GATT, but in 1955 the United States of America said that the question of trade in agriculture and food was more important than just trading in a commodity. It said that it was about national security. This is an argument that we are now encountering from Japan, Korea and like countries. It then opted out of the GATT, and other countries, seeing what the United States had done, did likewise. They simply said, `If you are not going to be bound, neither are we'. So that slow but gradual buildup of protected agricultural industry began as early as 1955. It was good to see that there was a bipartisan approach by this Parliament to the problem. We need to phase out trade in subsidised agricultural products. It was good to see that bipartisan approach in insisting that agriculture became the dominant item for the multilateral trade negotiation round which is presently going on.

Having stressed the importance of trade in agriculture, I now turn to what I think is the growth area for trade in Australia. It lies with the services area. This is not in any way to decry the importance of a healthy manufacturing sector, but I would like to make some comparisons. Measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the following statistics are quite revealing. Manufacturing industry is now 17 per cent of GDP, down from 29.3 per cent in 1959. The health industry is now greater than our retail industry, at 6.9 per cent. The education industry is now larger than our construction industry, at 5.7 per cent. The business services industry is larger than our mining industry, at 6.1 per cent. In 1986 tourism became larger than agriculture in GDP terms. To put it another way; one Japanese tourist visiting Australia is in monetary terms equal to the export of 20 tonnes of Australian wheat.

By 1988, 30 per cent of all world trade will be done in services. This should be compared with 1888 when 70 per cent of all trade was done in agriculture. The forecast for the year 2088 is that only 10 per cent of world trade will be in agriculture and mining. Australia is presently dependent upon agriculture for 40 per cent of her export earnings, 40 per cent on the extractive industries and 20 per cent for the rest. We have a major problem which we have to face. Our major extractive export earner is coal and coal is in for a tough time.

Not only are we in the position where our major trading partners simply renegotiate contracts, but also we have to realise that that same trading partner has equity investments in mines in southern America, that South Africa is selling coal on the spot market at a most attractive subsidised price. And more and more worrying for Australia is the fact that there is a very large deposit of coal in Kalimantan in Indonesia which is highly accessible, which is superior in grade to that which we take out, particularly of the southern coal mines of New South Wales.

We have been able hitherto to be able to get away with some of our work practices and some of our on-costs on the basis that we were selling a superior product in coal. But once the grade of ore from Kalimantan comes on stream we are in for a really tough time. It was interesting to hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) say in the Budget Speech last night that he expected, or hoped, that gold would make up for the loss of earnings in the coal area. There is no doubt about it; the service area is where the service competitive edge for Australia must be honed.

The Pacific Basin is a place which we have regarded with benign neglect. It is no longer the tranquil place that its name suggests. Earlier this year I was in Fiji at the time of the coup. It brought home, I think, to all of us who were present that the change and challenge of the Pacific and indeed the Western Pacific, which is our bailiwick, has not been attended to in our policy decision making. Our relations with Indonesia are at an all time low. Our trade with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations has diminished in the last four years by one per cent. Clearly, we do not have a good record in dealing with the nations in our own neighbourhood.

I spoke earlier of the profound influence that history has had on my career. Well, the history of this country also records that on 3 December 1854 the Victorian gold miners revolted against legislation which required them to produce on demand, under penalty of #5, their miners' cards. This resulted in the Eureka Stockade. I sincerely hope that history does not repeat itself in the present climate and that the freedom of the individual of which I spoke earlier remains just that-the freedom to be an individual.

In the last two years I have had the honour to serve my Party as President in New South Wales. I have made a particular point of being very active and serving the people in the west of Sydney. I have made a decision and an undertaking to open my office in Parramatta, the demographic heart of Sydney. It is important, I feel, that the many people who vote Liberal in those areas are served by a representative when they have no other opportunity at this moment to be so served. I am concerned with the grass roots aspirations of the ordinary people of Australia. We hear in debate much discussion about trade unions and trade union power. However, trade unionists are just awfully good Australians-Australians who care as much as anybody in this chamber about the hopes and aspirations of their children and their children's children. The Australia that I want to see and hope to leave to my children and my children's children is one that pays heed to those freedoms that I began to speak about at the beginning of my speech-the freedom of choice, the freedom to pursue excellence and the freedom to seek reward for effort.

As I go forward to serve not only the members of my Party-because I have now been elected to an office which must be more important and broadly based than just those who support us-I sincerely hope that I will keep in mind the grass roots Australians for whom I have so much admiration and respect and with whom I wish to stay very much in contact. I have been honoured to have a hearing such as this for my maiden speech. I know it is customary to place on record again one's thanks to one's family and to one's friends, all of whom have been of assistance. I do not want to do that in a pro forma or merely formal way. I feel that all of us who come into the political arena who have husbands or wives or children have to come with a team effort, with a willingness for it to be a family commitment, or the life simply is not possible. I do hope I have earned the support that my family has given me. I hope I have earned the support that my friends and my Party have given me. I hope I will continue to earn the support of the people of New South Wales.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Colston) —Thank you for your contribution, Senator Bishop. Before I call Senator Burns, I remind honourable senators that this is his first speech in this chamber. I therefore ask all honourable senators to extend the normal courtesies to him in the course of his speech.