The Sydney Morning Herald from Sydney, New South Wales, Australia • Page 17

The Sydney Morning Herald, Friday, June 13, 1986 Page 17 CBnanBBBBHKU am J' 3LS insecurity have to go through Cabinet's Expenditure Review. Committee hopper. It seems the Government wants to sit tight on the cuts until after the ALP national conference in Hobart next month. Today, Hawke and Keating will put on a loud display of slashing funds for the States. But this is not going to do a great deal to impress union leaders: most of them are arguing against cuts in the social wage.

The miscalculation involved in the Hawke statement was captured by the "work-for-the-dole" proposal. A last-minute steal from a concept which John Howard has been advocating, the Government by yesterday still had no answers on whether the scheme would cost money or save it, let alone how it would work. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a statement to the nation about Australia's serious trading situation. The scheme is a piece of cheap populism included, apparently, because the Prime Minister had become desperate to put something new and interesting in his speech, and because it was an idea which some young people had raised with him. Like most other questions seeking further details of this hotchpotch of a package, there was no elaboration available yesterday on how many kids had pressed on him their urge to work for the dole.

It has all the hallmarks, and could well suffer the same fate, as the scheme announced by Neville Wran in his 1984 policy speech for a rebate to NSW residents who took their holidays in NSW. That sank without trace. The most important potential trade-off for the unions was on industry policy. Here the Hawke statement is a triumph of tokenism a Buy Australian campaign, under which manufacturers will be able to apply a green-and-gold logo to their products a national export drive, and so on. The Government, confronted with business rejection of broad investment agreements and incentives, simply ran out of time to develop anything meaningful on this front.

There is a logic in the Government achieving cuts in real wages even if it can do little directly about prices and other business practices. But it will be difficult to sell to the unions. For one, wage restraint offers the quickest path to hauling Australia's inflation rate back towards that of our trading partners critical if we are to benefit in the long term from the devaluation. Second, with the economy slowing down, there will be much less scope for the work force to keep growing and, therefore, the more wages grow the fewer jobs there will be. The one other area, apart from wages, where the Government looks like delivering something of substance is in restraint on its own activities.

Hawke said, rather enigmatically, in his statement that more than SI billion in spending cuts had been This, according to government officials yesterday, meant the cuts had actually been made. But they were not saying where and some of the sensitive political areas, such as health and social welfare, still INSTEAD of strengthening his position as the top banana in the republic, Bob Hawke's address to the nation on Wednesday cast new doubts about his style and decisionmaking abilities. Whether, as some people in Canberra were suggesting yesterday, it signals that the only way forward for Hawke now is downhill is another question. To those close to politics, there are always more watersheds than can fit side by side in a politician's career. But Wednesday night was the culmination of a sorry series of incidents which has seen the Government's political strategy miscue badly in recent weeks.

The Prime Minister these days, we keep being told, is more relaxed and more in control after being in the job for three years. -That would be more convincing if he did not let his insecurity complex show at such regular intervals. Recent events recall some of the earlier examples of the Prime Minister's impetuousness. He called a royal commission into the Combe-Ivanov Affair without consulting Cabinet; insisted against almost universal advice on a long campaign for the 1984' election; agreed to a debate with the then Opposition Leader, Andrew Peacock; and announced a tax summit during the election campaign. They were.

all errors which led to political setbacks. Bob Hawke came back from overseas last month and decided to take charge. His announcement on May 30 on the about February next year. This is made up of a 2 per cent discount from the current national wage case, plus the equivalent of another 1 per cent because of the delay in the decision (which is likely to be built into the system) and another 1-2 per cent from discounting in the next case. So what we are left with is, potentially, a greater cut in real wages than has been achieved for many years probably since the Depression.

Wages growth by February could be running only a little over half the rate of inflation. That, at least, is the position the Government wants to achieve. The problem with Hawke's statement is that even the very understanding Simon Crean is not prepared to talk turkey with the Government until the unions at least know what increase they will be getting from the current case. That is one reason why Hawke was not willing to put a figure on the amount of discounting the Government will seek in the next case. The union revolt and threat of a wages break-out already beginning to take shape yesterday would have received added impetus.

That is one good reason why the statement should have waited untii after the national wage case. With discounting having a high public profile, and separated out from any of the potential offsetting benefits, the ACTU leadership now is rapidly being boxed in by its constituents. Like any other politicians, they ultimately cannot ignore the majority view. If the Government and the ACTU go their different ways, then the Arbitration Commission, which will also be hearing submissions from the employers for discounting, could well grant it anyway. The response of the unions in these circumstances would depend, critically, on whether they accept the Government's argument that it is seeking equality of sacrifice.

Hawke's statement was particularly unconvincing on this score. The Government has neither the power nor the will to be as tough with business as it is with the unions. How the Opposition after Wednesday can continue to rabbit on about the Government being run by the unions defies explanation. THE Government would like to see restraint in executive and professional salaries, which have grown more quickly than wages, but all it can do to achieve it is write off to business groups and major corporations asking them to do the right thing. The Commonwealth has no constitutional power over prices; all that Hawke's statement could offer on this front was more letters urging business to give "maximum support" for voluntary pricing guidelines developed by the Prices Surveillance Authority, and some token gestures to widen the reach of the authority itself.

If you haven't heard so far about the splendid job the authority does in keeping down inflation, then that could have something to do with the fact that it has had virtually no impact. not be so serious. But the currency dealers waiting around the world for the tick of the telex quickly made the assessment that there was nothing to inspire any confidence in the future course of the economy. Now that, with the floating of the dollar, Australia is locked into this international environment, the economy is being squeezed into a mould determined by financiers and economists who believe in unfettered capitalism. This is reflected in the current attitude of Australian business, which does not feel compelled to give ground to the Government on any matter of substance because it believes it will be forced in time to adopt the policies business wants, including a substantially smaller government sector.

The market's assessment, which on day-to-day events is always superficial, was unfairly harsh on Wednesday, given the ramifications of the Government's wages decisions. The Government could have avoided this if it had forgone the temptation to declare its thoughts on wages beforehand and packaged its product better. Wages was the one part of the statement that was unambiguously tough. It was only a few years ago that it was generally accepted that it was not possible to cut real wages in the Australian industrial relations environment. If the Government achieves what it has now announced, it will have kept the growth in wages to 4-5 per cent below the Consumer Price Index by The 111 The der Ul 311 is our only defence i'f "'A.

1 Irtnt si tl sjj 3 3 John Laws show (where most of the Government's major plans seem to be unveiled these days) that he would make a television and radio address caught Paul Keating, among others, by surprise. Although the idea of such a speech had been discussed among ministers, the first time they realised a decision had been made was after Hawke's comment went across the air waves. The idea of making the statement was not wrong in itself, but its timing was all awry. Saddled with Paul Keating's melodramatic banana republic analogy, the Government's task was to deliver in line with the rhetoric. This was the Treasurer's intention, and he dragged the rest of the Government along.

But it had not moved far enough by Wednesday. After announcing his address to the nation, Hawke cast around for things to put in it. The end product was one of the most ill-prepared, ad hoc major government statements of policy heard in years. If Australians only had to impress themselves, the consequences would 5 -t- V'-' wy- 5-', A -iff 4 U4 lili "WW'? No. She is too strong and too independent for that, and most of ail, she knew where she stood, she knew where I stood, and we knew where each other stood, so there were never any difficulties with us.

NSW under Fraser was treated as a foreign country. We were the only Labor government and Fraser treated me as a political leper and NSW as if it was he treats Zimbabwe with greater concern than he ever did NSW, and he put the hottest stunts in the world. The Burdekin dam, for instance, him and Petersen wandered out of the room one day don't know whether it was for a comfort stop or a cup of coffee but by the time they came back, Petersen had S65 million for the Burdekin dam and they had put a line through our claim, which was probably a commensurate number of dollars, for an accelerated electricity program, in other words, building new power stations. I think it was certainly a political dislike. I didn't care about his personal likes and dislikes, I didn't like him very much.

It went on and on and on, and as I have said before, with the crowds that were there we could have hired the thoughts mvt. i mm um mwm fc, L0 Lifts aiKSM1 iSksl At sM. A U. of Rights of the State, children's rights and others. Equal protection of the laws and freedom from discrimination are also guaranteed.

How is the Bill to be enforced? The courts will have a limited role. They will be required to interpret Commonwealth legislation so that it is consistent with the Bill of Rights. If it is not, the courts will be able to strike the legislation down if it was enacted before the Bill of Rights. But the courts will not be able to exercise this power in the first five years of the Bill's operation. The courts will also be able to declare inoperative legislation enacted after the Bill of Rights but inconsistent with it, unless the Parliament explicitly provides otherwise.

These powers will apply only to Commonwealth legislation and not to the legislation of the States and the Northern Territory. The final power of the courts will be to give orders for the protection of rights, including the power to exclude evidence obtained in breach of the rights guaranteed in the Bill. Again, this power will apply only for offences against Commonwealth or Commonwealth Territory laws, not to offences against State and Northern Territory laws. The new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will hold its inquiries in private. This is to encourage the settlement of complaints by agreement, so as to save government departments the embarrassment of open investigations.

The commission will act like and have powers similar to an Ombudsman. These powers are seen as appropriate in the hands of an Ombudsman so why should they be controversial in the hands of the commission? If the commission finds there has been a breach of the person's rights, and cannot settle the complaints by agreement, it will recommend to the government body changes which will preclude further breaches of rights. It is only when the government body has failed to act on these recommendations that the commission will be able to make a public report. It will not be able to force the government body to do anything. Its reports can be ignored, though they are likely to create publicity and therefore pressure on governments to do something about the problem.

Why do we need a Bill of Rights? The common law cannot and does not protect rights. Statute law can remove rights at any time. If the Hawke Government enacts legislation for an identity card, to increase the power of ASIO to keep Australians under surveillance, and gives the power to tap telephones to State police, rights will be infringed both by the legislation itself and the inevitable abuses of it by agents of the State. The Bill of Rights is our only defence. Nick O'Neill, a senior lecturer in law at the NS Institute of Technology, was a member of the team which drew up the original draft Bill of Rights.

1 x. 1 Entertainment Centre and filled it. And there were all these Madam Defarges eating their Jaffas and doing their petit point, knitting away. Some of them wanted to see a head roll in the basket, others wanted to see you elevated to the Pope, and the whole thing was demeaning and they did some dreadful things to me. One day I am sitting there and some smart alec in some position of authority George Freeman, that SP punter bloke, a fellow who has got a bit of notoriety around the town; they would pop him alongside me in order that the cartoonists could draw their cartoons No, we didn't like it and we wanted to, not only clear my name, but I wanted to hurt a few of the people who had hurt me, too.

But I can't say that because then the editorial writers will say I am vindictive. It is a curious world, you know, when someone can kick you in a vital part of your anatomy and then you dust yourself down and get up and say: "Gee, that was good. Do it again." I haven't seen that happening in the real world. When I gave Mr Briese a working over recently, I knew what I was doing, I knew I wouldn't get any plaudits for that, but I felt he was due for it and I let him have it. NEVILLE WRAN, newly relaxed after his decision to retire, was interviewed yesterday by John Laws on 2GB.

This is an edited transcript of his views. DON'T put it down to anything more or less than the tall poppy syndrome, the natural instinct to-want to tear the tall poppies down, think they have got a bit big for their boots and someone starts something going, and then of course we all love hearing a story, a rumour, and other people build on it. Before you know, it has become a fact, and an undeniable fact. If I had been influenced by the stories, the rumours, the scandal mon-gering, the divorces, the properties, the pubs I owned, the deals I made, I 'would have been out of politics seven years ago, certainly three years ago. I didn't like it, and I found it very tedious, very irritating and very hurtful, but once you accept all that then it just becomes another ingredient in what is a very great honour and a very great privilege to be the Premier.

I could withstand all that, and we did withstand all that, and I think it is borne out by the fact that we never lost an election, we never lost a by-election. When the chips were down we had the capacity to win. mat' 1 jb if "i1 Qfo fH9 ISM The truth of the matter is a very simple one. I am old enough now to start thinking what the future holds and I have to be true to myself. I have to be true to the party.

I have to be true to the public. We are in the mid-term, we have got two years roughly to go before the next election, and if I stayed for that election it would mean another two years in office. Quite frankly, I didn't want to hack it into the 1990s. jLt W-JtB It got to us for a while, and I showed I think for a while I think, that it did get to us, but we did overcome it, and as I said somewhereelse, when I closed that door every night I was in another world. Did it ever really put a blemish on your' marriage? NICK O'NEILL argues the case for a law to preserve our rights.

i HE Bill of Rights, now before Parliament, has been under attack almost since it was thought of. Yet most of its opponents have simply misunderstood it. Professor Geoffrey Blainey, the latest critic, is reasonably typical. He was reported as saying that any Australian could report anyone else to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission alleging a breach of rights, and that the commission could investigate that complaint and send anyone failing to co-operate with it to jail. This is wrong.

The Bill of Rights does not apply to individuals dealing with one another. It applies to the activities of government. The Bill empowers the commission to investigate the acts and practices of Commonwealth government departments and statutory bodies. If the Commonwealth Attorney-General consents, it can also look at the acts and practices of State and Northern Territory governmental bodies. Public servants are obliged to help the commission, just as they must now co-operate with Ombudsmen.

What, then, will the Australian Bill of Rights do? Its major purpose is to set down for the first time in Australian law our civil and political rights. It sets standards by which governments and their public servants must measuie their behaviour when dealing with the public. The Bill gives individuals redress when government bodies infringe their rights. Given that this is its primary role, it is hard to understand why those who habitually oppose big government and large, unaccountable bureaucracies are so critical of it. Everyone in the country will be entitled to enjoy all the rights in the Bill.

But some rights are in conflict. For example, one person's freedom of speech may conflict with another person's right to protection of reputation. If one person has absolute rights, then the rights of others will be severely curtailed. Two things follow from this: first, if all are to enjoy their rights to the fullest extent, all are under a duty to protect the rights of others; and second, most rights may be limited to some extent. Under the Bill, rights may be limited to protect the rights of others and to protect national security, public order, and public health and morals.

The rights which the Bill protects are the well-recognised civil and political rights and include freedom of speech, thought, religion, association and public assembly; the right to vote and take part in public life; the right to a fair trial and to proper treatment when in the custody is- r-f jf ,0 it There is no such thing as the Age Tapes. There are transcripts and this will be my last opportunity to say it, and it is not sour grapes Mr Justice Stewart did not say the Age Tapes were authentic. What Mr Justice Stewart said is that the police, over a great number of years, illegally tapped people's telephones, as a result of which the transcripts, which we all refer to as the Age Tapes, came into existence. But in his report he says the transcripts are inaccurate and unreliable. I don't like it, and I haven't got sufficient faith in the law enforcement authorities for them to be given the right to invade people's privacy, and I am prepared to concede a very limited right of phone tapping under the surveillance of the judiciary that's judges in respect of drug offences, drug peddling, drug pushing, and terrorism; but you don't need a policeman listening in to your conversation with your wife, or if you haven't got a wife with your girlfriend or your boyfriend or your transvestite friend just for the sake of doing so.

Remember, that went on. And I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if it is going on at this very moment, and I think all of that is wrong. 3 1 I repeat, the biggest organised crime that has been committed in Australia this decade was wholesale, unlawful, illegal, criminal phone tapping by police. I also think that, after the tape has come into existence, the tape should be heard by the judge who gave the power to the police to tap the phone in order that he can be satisfied that they complied with the intention of the law, and that is the pursuit of drug traffickers and drug peddlers. Has your phone been tapped? I have no doubt about it.

Do you think it still is? Yes. It makes telephone calls cryptic, and you are a bit reluctant to discuss personal matters. You know, if a member of your family has an argument with another member of the family, which happens in every family, they ring up and say to you "Oh, that so-and-so is "Now, calm down, I will see you later, I will talk to you about it." That's right, but you see that written down It looks awful. You can say to somebody face to face with a big grin on your face 'You are the greatest I have ever met in my and he takes it calmly and knows what you are talking about. On the telephone, you can still have the greatest grin on your face.

No-one can see it, then when it comes out in the black-and-white print it is a condemnation of somebody who might have been your best friend. You'll be Cruising with a I niwiiir courfe of million dollars Australian Eagle Living Insurance 1 Please send me more information on the Eagle Super Rich Plan, 1 rr 118 Alfred Street, I Ifyoureiuiider35andearn- Milsons Point, NSW 206 1 Name ing $20,000, you can retire (No stamp required.) I With over $2,000,000 or Phone: (02)9294144 1 Address A. mmmiiJummrraMsmm? in superannuation. -y JN -N 1 AUSTIMLIArEAGLE -tfrssrijurjss oLIVING INSURANCE I I I i Australian Eagle Insurance Co. Ltd.

(Inc. in Vic.) 4 et''' s4Wte msPje ye swww MS feaHJ ssiU 4 fcfc. A ''m A vmm tvi -tf-w wtt ill! pp J.lllg uij. jwm.mw Jr, Jji "Ul -tw i i TT 1 I IT- I I. I IJ IPUI! an I "II 1 1" I mm I lllllia.iM.j -r.