Thursday, 19 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for De-fence) —by leave-For the information of honourable members, I present the defence of Australia policy information paper. The problem confronted by all Australian defence planners is that, while we are firmly part of the Western community of nations, our defence situation is unique and requires unique solutions. The Australian people expect that Australia should be able to defend itself. The Australian Government accepts its duty to provide Australia with defence forces able to meet that expectation. This paper sets the course for a decade or more of development of self-reliance in the defence and security of Australia. For Australia, defence self-reliance is set firmly within the framework of our alliances and regional associations. The support they give us makes self-reliance achievable. They, in turn, will draw added support from a self-reliant Australia which will be better able to discharge its responsibilities in the vast strategic region to which we belong. Self-reliance as a goal is based on a realistic assessment of our strengths, as well as on a rigorous appraisal of our weaknesses and deficiencies. It draws upon the skilful mobilisation of Australia's resources-physical, financial and human. The Australian Government's policy of self-reliance in defence requires both a coherent de-fence strategy, and an enhanced defence capacity. This paper defines that strategy, and details the program to increase our capacity. The policy paper covers the full range of matters before Government in the defence area. It deals with policy, strategy, force structure, industry, de-fence science, infrastructure, personnel and resources. It is not possible in a tabling statement to give adequate weight to the full breadth of issues covered. Therefore I intend to give primary weight to those areas which have attracted attention since the production of the defence review headed by Paul Dibb-the current director of the Joint Intelligence Organisation. This tabling statement focuses primarily on matters of strategy and force structure and sets them broadly within the framework of international aspects of defence policy. The Government's policy of self-reliance requires a rigorous and specific military strategy. We need a clear conception of the way in which military forces are to be used to defend Australia, so that we can develop the capabilities we really need to do the job. The military strategy we have developed can be described as layered defence or defence in depth. This strategy dictates that we develop an Australian defence force capable of meeting any hostile force within our area of direct military interest with successive layers of forces capable of detecting, identifying and engaging any hostile approach. This strategy is, in the broadest political sense, defensive. But the strategy is not defensive in the more specifically military sense. The strategy does not mean that Australia forswears offensive military operations in defence of its territory and interests. The policy outlined in this paper gives an important role to offensive operations as exemplified by our long range strike capabilities. These long range strike capabilities include an enhanced submarine force, FA18s supplemented by in-flight refuelling, a continuing commitment to the F111 force, and the substantial strike capabilities of our P3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. Taken together, these forces constitute by far the strongest long range strike capability in the region. They provide us with the ability to operate against a full range of targets, not only in our area of direct military interest, but well beyond. The capabilities we need for defence in depth are determined, among other things, by our assessments of the capabilities we may face. In particular, it is important in setting priorities for force development to distinguish as clearly as possible those threats which can arise with little or no warning from those which would take some time to develop. It is essential that we give priority to developing the capabilities we need to meet threats that could arise with little warning, ahead of those which would take longer to emerge. The Government has carefully analysed the defence capabilities within our region, including those of the Soviet Union. Two important assessments emerge. The first is that no regional power has the capability to mount a major attack on Australia. Such an attack is defined as one involving the seizure and occupation of a substantial portion of our territory. The second is that the capability to mount smaller scale-but still serious-military operations against us already exists in our region. Our judgment that no regional country has the capability to mount a major attack on Australia is based on a rigorous assessment of the sort of military forces needed to mount such an attack, and of the military capabilities available in the region. A major attack on Australia would require a huge military effort backed by an extensive logistic system to sustain the attack. In particular, the forces required for a major assault on Australia go well beyond large scale land forces. Major maritime forces would also be needed, involving large numbers of high capability ships and aircraft. These forces do not now exist in this region and could not be rapidly or secretly developed. I want to stress that our judgment on the likelihood of major assault is not based on an assessment of political intentions, but of military capabilities. Likewise, our assessment of the possibility of low level military action against our territory or interests is also based on the military capabilities in our region, and not on any expectation that our relations with regional countries will deteriorate to the point where they might be used. We are fortunate in sharing a region with peace-loving nations with whom we enjoy cordial relations. Retaining that relationship is an important aspect or our diplomatic effort. Nevertheless, political circumstances can alter more rapidly than those which change capabilities. It is important to be clear what sort of conflicts fall into the category of low level contingencies. `Low level' refers to military threats less than major assault or invasion, including some very serious contingencies which would demand an urgent and substantial military response. Threats such as mining of our major ports, attacks on our off-shore territories or in our resource zone, the interception of our coastal trade, and raids on vital northern installations and infrastructure, could cause severe damage to our national interests. The extent and remoteness of our territory and maritime approaches make them difficult to protect against this sort of threat. No responsible government could leave Australia open to such attacks. We must have the ability to counter them; and, because the regional capability already exists, we must have the ability to counter them with the force-in-being. The importance of low level contingencies poses a unique challenge to Australia's military planning. Nations in the traditional battlefields of Europe or the Middle East prepare primarily for the highest level of threat-that of invasion. Australia's force structure could not be sensibly planned on that basis. Preparation for low level threats requires unique planning and operational concepts. Nevertheless, some of the assets we retain against the remote threat of a major assault or invasion, sometime in the future, would be of considerable use in lower level operations: Our FA18s with in-flight refuelling, our submarines and our frigates with Seahawk helicopters are examples. Likewise, our surveillance capability requires much the same capacity for both high and low-level threats. The problems of distance, harsh environment, and lack of infrastructure in many of the most vulnerable areas of the country in the north and north-west place demands on the Defence Force in countering low-level threats. These demands would be just as substantial in planning and deployment terms, as distinct from resources, as countering a major assault or invasion. This is not the case in the military contingencies from which we traditionally draw lessons. The uniqueness of Australia's geography and defence position, and the unique demands of low-level threats in our circumstances, need to be clearly understood if we are to provide properly for our security. The defence policy laid out in the paper I am tabling today gives due priority to developing the capabilities we need to handle low-level contingencies. To do this, we need flexible and long range capabilities for maritime surveillance and interdiction to deny an adversary effective use of the sea-air gap to the north; we need comprehensive capabilities in areas ignored in the recent past, such as mine countermeasures; we need a highly mobile army able to react to any incursions right across the continent; and we need ground forces able to protect military and civilian infrastructure and population in the most remote parts of the country. As I said, we need these capabilities now; we need them in the force-in-being. Again, I am not suggesting that any willingness or intention to threaten Australia in this way exists in the region. But, as I have said, proper defence planning must be based on contingencies which reflect a realistic assessment of prevailing and developing regional capabilities. Inherent in the defence paper and in the Government's implementation of defence self- reliance is the linking of practical defence policy with our allies, and our role in the region as a military power. Australia-United States of America co-operation is important to basic elements of an effective and efficient system of Australian defence. The first essential of good defence is good intelligence. Our strict ordering of defence priorities is based ultimately on comprehensive regional intelligence. It is the possession of up-to-date intelligence on the whole of our area of primary strategic interest, and the knowledge specifically of the entire range of current or prospective regional capabilities, that provides the quantifiable basis for determining our defence priorities. Australia has significant indigenous capabilities for regional intelligence. However, it is access to complementary United States intelligence, and particularly access to United States satellite intelligence, which Australia could not afford to duplicate, that completes our comprehensive knowledge of regional capabilities. The American relationship also makes a major contribution to the development of self-reliant capabilities for our independent defence. Many of the most important items in our defence inventory are purchased from the United States. The FA18s, FFG frigates, and F111s are examples of equipment obtained from the United States by virtue of Australia's favoured customer status. In addition, other important capabilities, such as the indigenous Jindalee over-the-horizon radar, draw on our access to United States research and experience. This access to the latest United States military technology, and our favoured status as a defence purchaser-benefits otherwise confined to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries-means, effectively, that our Defence Force will retain a technological edge in regional terms for the foreseeable future. A particular aspect of our relationship with the United States that assures our capacity for self-defence is our guaranteed access to ready resupply of essential war stocks. Emergency war stocks of equipment and munitions would be prohibitively expensive to maintain ourselves. However, our needs could be relatively easily met from United States stocks. Such support is also readily granted by an ally still making up its mind on a broader military and political contribution in a crisis. For these reasons we can be very confident that emergency resupply would be available. Such material support is a vital American contribution to our self-reliant defence posture. The availability of American intelligence, advanced technology, and logistic support makes a self-reliant defence capability for Australia achievable and affordable. American co-operation enables the development of effective Australian defence with a realistic level of financial allocation. The American alliance, of course, also provides a substantial deterrent. Whilst it would be irresponsible to depend on direct American combat support for our security, the possibility that this would be forthcoming would greatly complicate the offensive strategy of a potential aggressor. In developing the ability to look after ourselves, we also develop a range of capabilities with significant potential for allied co-operation. Our frigates with Seahawk anti-submarine helicopters, our FA18s with in-flight refuelling, our new highly capable submarines, our F111s, our new long range light patrol frigates, and a mobile and readily deployable Army-these elements of a self-reliant Defence Force could clearly contribute significantly to joint allied operations in our region or further afield should the government of the day so decide. Defence self-reliance, therefore, both allows Australia to provide for its own defence and maintains our substantial capacity to make a practical contribution to Western security. Confidence in Australia's ability to defend itself, and in our capacity for allied co-operation, considerably enhances perceptions of Australia as a stabilizing influence in our region. A self-reliant Australian defence policy therefore directly assists the protection of Western interests through its contribution to regional stability. The stabilising effect of Australian self- reliance is far from our only contribution to Western security. Australia's military co-operation with the United States in a range of activities from joint exercises to the provision of port access and staging and training facilities is also a tangible indication of our support for the Western Alliance. In particular, Australia's hosting of the joint Australia-United States defence facilities at Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape contributes substantially to the maintenance of global stability. The facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar play a central role in the verification of arms control and disarmament agreements as well as giving the United States confidence in its ability to detect missile launches and monitor nuclear explosions. The joint defence facility at North West Cape permits reliable transfer of messages to both United States ships and submarines operating in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific as part of a complex system of communications supporting the global balance. The joint facilities in Australia contribute directly to mutual deterrence between the super-powers, a necessary intermediate stage on the path to complete disarmament. More specifically, they have real significance in efforts to make substantial progress towards arms control. Their early warning function is important in the avoidance of accidental war and assists a stable central balance. Australia's military co-operation with the United States and our hosting of the joint facilities enhance global security by making nuclear war between the super-powers less likely. This contribution to world stability is obviously of direct and immediate benefit to our own prospects for a peaceful existence. The defence paper clearly indicates that other elements of the Government's defence policy also directly support regional stability and protect Western interests in our part of the globe. Australia's long-standing defence relationship with New Zealand and our common perception of security objectives in the South West Pacific and South East Asia will remain an important factor in regional stability. The ability of Australian and New Zealand forces to operate together and to support and sustain each other adds significantly to the joint defensive capacity of our two nations. In addition, our common concern to maintain the favourable strategic orientation of our region has led to a range of co-operative defence activities, particularly in the South West Pacific. The Australian Government has stated clearly its complete disagreement with New Zealand's policy on port access for allied nuclear powered or armed vessels. The Australian Government looks forward to a full resumption of a trilateral ANZUS relationship as soon as this is feasible. Meanwhile, it is important not to lose sight of New Zealand's continuing contribution to secur- ity in our region. We have therefore been pleased by New Zealand's ready response to the initiatives I announced some weeks ago on the South Pacific and its willingness to involve itself in a wide range of co-operative defence procurement with Australia. The Government regards it as important that New Zealand retains the military capability to operate with us, both in our mutual defence and in aiding our neighbours in the South Pacific. The New Zealand Government's recent White Paper on defence and my own discussions with New Zealand Ministers confirm the New Zealand Government's commitment to maintaining and developing a full range of defence capabilities compatible with our own. Australia has a continuing close relationship with Papua New Guinean defence matters. Papua New Guinea is an important factor in our security, and we in turn have a long-standing commitment to Papua New Guinea's security. We will continue to provide specialist advice to the Papua New Guinean defence force and to consult on regional defence issues. The five-power defence arrangements-FPDA-remain relevant to our defence policy objectives of promoting strategic stability and security in our region. These arrangements were established in 1971 at the time of Britain's withdrawal from east of Suez to provide a framework to support the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore and for the development of their defence capabilities. Since that time, the two countries' defence forces have expanded considerably and the formation and consolidation of the Association of South East Asian Nations has reinforced the ability of each member to withstand external pressure and has fostered the development of a broad political and strategic consensus. With changing circumstances, including New Zealand's announcement of its planned withdrawal from Singapore in 1989, Australia is particularly important in maintaining the FPDA framework. Australia does this through our Mirage deployments, our P3C maritime surveillance operations, our naval deployments, participation in bilateral and multilateral exercises and other defence co-operation activities. As the Government has previously announced, a Royal Australian Air Force presence at Butterworth and Singapore will be maintained after the withdrawal of the Mirage aircraft in 1988 by rotational deployments of FA18 aircraft, supplemented on some occasions by F111 aircraft. The Army Rifle Company will continue to be deployed to Butterworth, as will RAAF P3C aircraft. It is important to understand that this activity is not seen as a leftover from an era long gone. This Government has had several opportunities to view the situation afresh and has concluded that there is substantial political value in our co-operation. The Soviet Union's naval and naval air presence at Cam Rahn Bay is a significant concern for Australian defence policy. The Soviet Union does not enjoy naval and air dominance in the region and in the event of global conflict its military assets in Vietnam would be very vulnerable to United States forces in the region. Nonetheless its presence is an adverse element in regional security. Its primary significance lies in the political influence it provides the Soviet Union. It gives added importance to our defence co-operative activities in the region, particularly our maritime surveillance of the South China Sea and the north-east Indian Ocean and our naval deployment to the region. In the South Pacific, Australia is a major regional power. Recent developments affecting the South Pacific have contributed to an increasingly complex political and strategic situation. Accordingly, the Government is working to explore and develop measures for defence co- operation among our island neighbours that will help ensure strategic stability and security in the region. In my parliamentary statement of 20 February 1987 on defence initiatives in the South Pacific, I announced these measures and noted the Government's intention to give defence relations with the island states the same priority we give our older-established relations with the nations of South East Asia. To this point I have been dealing with matters related to our area of strategic concern and our broader defence relationships. Important as these considerations are at this level, they do not determine our force structure. That is determined, as I established earlier, by the requirements of strategy in our area of direct military interest. I will now examine this matter in more detail. The Government has accepted advice that a strategy of comprehensive defence in depth requires military superiority in the sea-air gap to the north and across the vast expanse of northern Australia. Defence in depth means that an opponent would founder on layers of deployed defence assets through and to our north. The first layer comprises high quality and comprehensive intelligence about military developments in our region, and a variety of surveillance capabilities to detect and track hostile intruders in our maritime and air approaches. I mentioned earlier our regional intelligence capability and I stressed the benefits we receive from co-operation with the United States in this field. This Government plans to add to the tactical value of this information by constructing a network of up to three over-the-horizon radars in the north of Australia. Provision has been made in the defence program to supplement these with an airborne early warning and control capability. We propose to develop also a national system of air defence and airspace control. For the first time in our history these initiatives will enable comprehensive tactical surveillance of the great expanse of our sea and air approaches. A substantial new intelligence facility will be built in Western Australia, and the capabilities of our 20 Orion P3C maritime surveillance aircraft will be improved by the acquisition of new sensors. The second layer is a naval-air capability to destroy enemy forces in our approaches and to protect focal points and shipping lanes. For higher levels of conflict it means having forces able to strike at an adversary's bases and able to interdict his lines of supply. The key components of our strike and interdiction capability are the F111s and FA18s, and the submarines. Options are being considered to refurbish the F111s to reduce operating costs and to maintain them in service. The need for F18 aircraft to supplement the F111 fleet will be considered. The value of the F18s in the strike and air defence role is being enhanced by the acquisition of an airborne refuelling capability using the RAAF's 707 aircraft. The strike capability of Australia's submarine fleet will be greatly increased when the current Oberons are replaced by new submarines specifically designed for Australian requirements and built in Australia. These will be among the largest, longest range and most lethal conventional submarines operating anywhere in the world when they come into service in the 1990s. The Government plans to increase substantially the size and capability of the Navy's fleet of surface combatants. It has initiated a project to build eight light patrol frigates with the range, speed and seakeeping to operate throughout our area of direct military interest and beyond. They will each carry a helicopter, and be fitted with a range of modern sensors and weapons. With the two extra guided missile frigates, in addition to the four already in service, and our guided missile destroyers, the eight light patrol frigates will increase the Navy's fleet of surface combatants from 12 at present to 16 or 17. Equally important, the Government has decided to create a genuine two-ocean navy by basing half the fleet at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia. This will enhance the Navy's capability to operate throughout our area of direct military interest. The anti-submarine capabilities of the Navy will be developed by the purchase of Seahawk helicopters and the development of surface and submarine-towed acoustic arrays. The air defence capabilities of the ADF are being dramatically enhanced as the new F18's enter service, a system of airspace control is developed and a line of air bases across Australia's north is completed. One squadron of F18s will be based at Tindal, bare bases have or are to be established at Learmonth and Derby in Western Australia, and one is planned for Cape York Peninsula. The third layer comprises a flexible ground force with air and naval support able to react to any enemy incursion right across our territory and able to protect dispersed population centres and civil and military infrastructure. We will develop a highly mobile army for this layer with state-of-the-art battlefield helicopters. Priority will be given to the needs of dispersed Army operations in the north. More of the Army will be based there, beginning with the 2nd Cavalry Regiment to be based in Darwin. Studies will begin on the relocation of a full brigade to the north. The role of the Army Reserves will be substantially widened. Specific units will be allocated vital installations and infrastructure in the north to defend in times of emergency. Their involvement in tank warfare and artillery will be increased. High priority is being given by the Government to the development of a mine countermeasure capability. This is particularly important in meeting low level contingencies, as many nations in our region now have the capability to lay mines. Unfortunately Australia's mine countermeasures capability has been allowed to run down, and a major effort is now required to restore it. At least six in-shore minehunters are being sought, and innovative minesweeping capabilities are being explored. Naval reserves will be expanded to undertake mine countermeasures in key areas. Lastly, several important initiatives are under way in the vital area of command, control and communications: A joint operational command system has been created by the appointment of maritime, land force and air commanders who report directly to the Chief of the Defence Force. Computer-based information systems are being developed to support the decision-making of operational and higher-level commanders. New communication systems to support operations and administration will be introduced, making use of modern technological developments including satellites. The use of cryptographic security will be considerably extended. This system of comprehensive defence in depth will give us the ability to counter those threats that are possible now and ensure our substantial capacity to deter fundamental challenges to our sovereignty that may arise in the future. To implement our strategy of defence in depth, the Government is making sweeping improvements to our defence capabilities. These improvements will ensure that we possess a defence force structured, equipped, supported, and trained to assure our security into the twenty-first century. This program for our future force development is based on a rigorous analysis of Australia's unique defence environment. Equally, it is based on a totally realistic assessment of defence allocations. The 1976 White Paper foundered on an unrealistic promise of sustained and substantial real increases in defence spending. The present Opposition spokesman on defence, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), acknowledged this when he said: The White Paper brought down in the early days of the Fraser/Anthony Government set parameters which would have enabled the ADF to meet more adequately any possible contingency in our region in the 1990s. He went to to say: Regrettably even the capital program that the White Paper envisaged was not matched by successive defence budgets. The coalition's failure to produce a responsible and affordable defence program has left many Australians cynical about their country's capability to defend itself. This Government takes a wholly realistic view of the financial constraints of Australia's defence posture. This defence paper is being presented in a more stringent financial environment than that faced by any government in the Fraser years. All political parties are promising to cut government expenditure. It is against this reality that hairy-chested demands for more defence spending must be tested. We have developed a defence program which we are confident can be achieved despite these stringent conditions. Our confidence that the program can be achieved is based on the flexibility in the program over 10 to 15 years, and our record in increasing and maintaining the share of the defence budget which we devote to capital spending. Capital spending has been lifted to a consistent level of over 25 per cent of the defence vote, and this year it will reach over 30 per cent. By maintaining this level of capital spending, the program outlined in this paper can be afforded even without real growth in the defence budget overall. At current levels, the defence budget provides nearly $40 billion for capital expenditure over the next 15 years, while the capital program outlined in this paper requires only a little over half of that sum. This allows the Government the flexibility it needs to meet further requirements for equipment and facilities, and to expand manpower and operating budgets, as circumstances demand over the next 15 years. These figures show that we can afford the defence we need, provided we focus carefully on our real priorities. What we cannot afford is everybody's defence wish list-nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, more tanks. All these carry a price tag which cannot be met within the Opposition's views on public spending, and cannot be justified in the rational ordering of our defence priorities. The coalition's record on defence spending between 1976 and 1983 will make people very sceptical of any Opposition claims that it will increase defence spending when it is promising to cut everything else. The Government is committed to more efficient defence. As well as making better use of our reserve forces, the Government will conduct a range of management reviews to identify areas in which regular Australian Defence Force personnel can be replaced at less cost by civilians or the use of private industry. Better management and more effective work practices will also be introduced. A particular area where the Government is extracting significant cost savings is in its management of defence factories and dockyards. These measures are directly saving around $60m per year, which is equivalent to around one per cent real growth in the defence budget. All Government factories and dockyards will use commercial costing and pricing procedures from 1 July this year. They will have to perform to the standards of competitive private industry and comply with specific production management agreements. Excess capacity in defence factories is being discarded. The Albion Explosives Factory in Victoria has been closed and its important capabilities are being transferred to the Mulwala Explosives Factory in New South Wales. The aircraft engineering workshops at Pooraka in South Australia have been sold to private industry. The Government Aircraft Factories in Victoria are being converted to a government-owned company, Aerospace Technologies of Australia. Substantial work force reductions have been made at other individual establishments and in the Office of Defence Production. The reforms I have just described go a long way to giving us the financial flexibility in defence planning essential at a time when all government outlays face some serious belt tightening. The basic point is this: This Government's clear strategic planning with an ordered conception of our defence priorities and its tough financial management mean we can have more defence without spending more money. A commitment to the defence of Australia must include a commitment to the industrial strength and financial well-being of the nation. I have described how our defence factories and dockyards will be encouraged to adopt a competitive and commercially oriented approach. Australian industry in general will be given extensive opportunities for involvement in defence projects on a competitive basis. Special briefings on the planned defence program will be provided to local enterprises. The offsets and defence designated and assisted work schemes will continue to be used to provide defence work for Australian industry. Specific measures to assist exports have already been introduced. And international collaboration between Australian and overseas firms in high technology defence projects will be actively promoted. Here I must thank one of my consultants, Bob Cooksey, for a very useful report on the subject of defence exports. The biggest boost to Australian industry, however, will come from the opportunities provided to local enterprises in the development of a self-reliant Australian Defence Force. A major beneficiary of this Government's defence policy will be the local shipbuilding industry. Australian companies will have leading roles in the local construction of our new submarines and new long range light patrol frigates. The value of this construction work for local industry is many billions of dollars. It constitutes the largest shipbuilding program in Australia's peacetime history. It will bring considerable high technology skill in ship construction and maintenance to this country and substantially enhance our ability to support independent maritime operations. More generally, Australian industry will be involved intensively in the support, maintenance and development of the Australian Defence Force. The Government is committed to making Australia's defence industries competitive and efficient so that we can buy Australian without paying high cost premiums. The extensive defence work to be undertaken in Australia over the next 10 years will assist some important national aims. This country cannot afford to be saddled again with the sort of huge balance of payments slug imposed on us by the FA18 program which, despite good management of the project, in one year represented 4 per cent of Australia's balance of trade deficit. This Government's initiatives for defence-related industry will increase our self-reliance and benefit the Australian economy generally. The most valuable resource in our nation's security is, of course, Australia's defence personnel. The Government's capital investment program will give them the new equipment and facilities they need to play their proper role in the defence of this country. The Government will continue to allocate the largest share of the defence budget to defence personnel. We have already initiated, and plan for the future, a range of personnel policies to further develop a well-trained and motivated Defence Force. This Government has established an independent and impartial wage-fixing system for the Defence Force. We plan to spend $750m over the next 10 years on new housing for the Defence Force. This is one of the Opposition's main criticisms and yet it was the coalition, when in government, that shamefully neglected housing for the Services. We are providing the necessary resources to improve living conditions. A new Defence Housing Authority has been created through legislation introduced this sitting, and the problems of service families have been addressed by Sue Hamilton in a special report commissioned by this Government. Her recommendations to alleviate the problems service families face are being dealt with. This is the first defence policy information paper for 10 years. The defence White Paper in 1976 recognised that self-reliance is the only responsible defence posture for Australia. The paper which I am tabling today establishes precisely what is required to achieve a self-reliant defence posture, and establishes that self reliance is achievable within our alliances, and within our resources. At this point I think it is appropriate I pay tribute to the work of Paul Dibb. Whatever his critics might think of the product of his review, it has set a new standard for defence debate in this country. Never again will those who wish to participate in the defence debate in this country simply be able to run off at the mouth with wish lists, persiflage and grandiloquence. The public has been educated to demand specifics. I should thank too the drafting team in the defence forces and Department who put long hours into this defence information paper, including over the Christmas period. I am glad that many of those associated with it are able to be in the gallery today. The program outlined is a prudent one, with clear-cut priorities. It is based on a realistic assessment of our circumstances and our important alliance relationships. We are a powerful nation in regional terms, but with some serious deficiencies. We could not now deny ourselves self-reliance in the terms set out in this White Paper. We know the goal is achievable. I present the following papers: Defence of Australia-a policy information paper, March 1987. Defence of Australia-a policy information paper, Ministerial statement, 19 March 1987. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take notice of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.43) —The Australian Institute of Health Bill gives statutory authority status to the Australian Institute of Health, which is obviously conceived as a policy think tank for the national direction of health policy. The need for a statutory body proceeds on the assumption that the Department of Health needs to be freed from the responsibility of administering the Australian Institute of Health. This body was the special charge of Dr Deeble who, like the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), has no training as a medical doctor. But he is a special pet of the Australian Labor Party and was the original author of Medibank and free medicine which, if it had been allowed to continue in its 1975 form, would have created the most profligate medical institution. If it had continued it would have by now earned a most repugnant reputation. Thankfully for Dr Deeble, he was saved this ignominious outcome of his expensive experiment by the failure of the Whitlam Government whose reputation continues as the free-spending, inflation-creating incumbency which set Australia's Federal affairs on the downward economic spiral. We know that honourable members on the Government side are no longer enamoured of the Whitlam spending years. They refer to then somewhat sheepishly in such terms as `if only we had done things differently'. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his Question Time harangues is always keen to blame the Fraser Government for the problems of this time. I believe that is quite extraordinary effrontery but, of course, effrontery is something that the Prime Minister is very practised at. The realities are that the Medibank scheme was an effort to produce a system of medical care which set no ceilings on public investment. It was a luxury ride to medical and fiscal irresponsibility. It became a first priority of the Fraser Government to put some onus of responsibility on to the individual for health care provision; and this is still the issue. The issue is not one of denying health care to individuals who cannot afford it; the issue is to ensure that those people who are in a position financially and socially to make forward provision for their health needs do so. The Australian Labor party is dogged by the British Labour Party concept of public health care and by an inbuilt hostility to the medical profession. The whole creeping malaise of this approach has been brought back into the system under the leadership of non-medical doctors-Dr Blewett and Dr Deeble-with only a partial recognition of the argument that people should be encouraged to raise their sense of personal responsibility for their own health. This is a very fundamental philosophical question and one that should be an important concern for every person. If an individual is not prepared to be responsible for his welfare, the threshold of personal responsibility is diminished. The extraordinary attitude in the Labor Party is one which encourages people to be derelict about the need to provide for their future. When people are neglectful of their own health welfare, the social costs can be enormous. It is, of course, an issue which runs to concerns about the health of the individual in the work place and employer responsibilities. The theme is a fundamental one. To weaken individual interest in his own health welfare by inviting the individual to hand over his concerns entirely to the Government is a socially very irresponsible thing to do, and successive Labor governments have done it openly and wilfully. It would be a socially irresponsible act to leave it open to industry to have the Government pick up the tab for work place health care. No one would advocate such a course and the principle of responsibility should not be abridged for the individual. The Government's Medicare system is one of critical concern. The Government's response is to shove people into a statutory body where their claims on the Labor Party can be satisfied and the role of the Institute discounted. The whole bulk billing device which is part of the brainchild has blown up in the Government's face. The system has been the cause of the disincentive for people to take out medical insurance and has been subjected to financial exploitation by unscrupulous medical practitioners. The scandals have now been so well reported that they cease to be news. Medical millionaire entrepreneurs have descended on the financial scene, where they have been able to present their exploits under bravado. The disillusionment is widespread. Even one of the Government's socialist left connections is worried, claiming that the public system is collapsing, which of course it is. The Federal Government and its counterpart Labor State governments, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, have produced a human crisis in the system of hospital care. The system now threatens the life of the people whom it was designed to save. The Age newspaper only last month ran an article which began: People with life threatening illnesses could be placed on waiting lists for elective surgery if public hospital queues continue to increase. The total on the waiting list in Victoria alone was over 38,000. This caused the cardiothoracic surgeon at St Vincent's Hospital to say that with longer waiting lists some heart patients could be more likely to die or to suffer a heart attack whilst on the list. Another consequence is that some people cannot receive surgical treatment for two to three years. All of this is a direct consequence of the philosophy of this Government to lead people to believe that the system of private medical insurance is an unnecessary diversion of medical resources. The worry is that those Australians who disregarded the naive views of the Minister and this Government and retained private health insurance at considerable personal costs are the only people who can be assured of elective surgery. The Medicare scheme, which was designed to meet the needs of public health care for the needy, is now destroying their entitlement. The fact is that medical care can impose unending demands on the community. The individual who takes medical insurance is aware of that fact. Those who do not take a personal interest in their health until a time of crisis do not carry a similar awareness. In the last few days we have heard from hospital administrators a call to encourage a greater personal awareness among smokers about the social costs of their habit. There are people who resume the habit after medical treatment of a smoking-induced disease. This kind of personal irresponsibility is enhance by a general doctrine of health care which assumes that the Government will be the chief purveyor of medical benefits. As I have said, the system is collapsing not only in Victoria but also in New South Wales. A headline in the Sydney Morning Herald at the end of last year claimed that 30,000 people were awaiting hospital admission. The same report said that virtually no elective surgical procedures were being performed in Sydney's leading hospitals; that is, the principal public hospitals of Sydney are not taking elective patients except for cardiac surgery. This is an incredible indictment of the end product of the very bad advice this Government has adopted from the Institute which has the gall to claim statutory privilege. The waiting lists in New South Wales are appalling in their detail. Patients waiting for orthopaedic surgery, urological surgery, neurosurgery and ear, nose and throat surgery have to wait for two or three years. Is that not a terrible situation? I believe that every one of us would be horrified about that situation, particularly when many old people are so affected. An opinion poll conducted by the Australian newspaper last year found that 40 per cent of Australians considered the situation worse than at any time in years. Many of those surveyed would not have had a problem. Knowledge of the failure of the system comes to those who require treatment, so that 40 per cent would include many who have yet to try the system. It is when one tries to get some elective surgery that one comes up against the hard facts. So the Government spends its time on gimmicks, such as we have in this particular piece of legislation. The Minister spends a great deal of his time working over his problems on the Australia Card. The Government pumps out propaganda saying the Card has 60 per cent support and that if its legislation is not passed it will make a great election issue of it. Well, I believe that the 60 per cent figure is a highly preferential one. It does not contain a grass roots explosive quality which can turn a vote in an election. The issue we should be concerned about-the issue the Minister should be concerned about-is the issue of ensuring that there is a medical service which can give people reasonable access to health care. This is one which can and will do this Government a great deal of damage indeed. The fact is, of course, that the present Government and its colleague Labor governments in New South Wales and Victoria have made a muck of the medical system. They have set up a system which is threatening the health of people it was intended to protect. That, I believe, is a terrible thing to have done. Only those caught up in the consequence of the crisis really know-they know that a family member will have to wait two or three years for treatment and that, while waiting, the condition can get worse. Indeed, the practical decision hospital administrators now have to make is that one can be taken off the long list only by being near death. So the Government has succeeded, with the help of the Institute, in bringing into the health equation a new factor-insecurity of treatment. People are being told that they need treatment for their complaint, and then the are told that nothing can be done for them unless they wait around for a couple of years or join a medical fund. I believe that is exactly the wrong basis on which to encourage people to join a fund. On this side of the House we are prepared to say to people: `Your health is one of the most important things in your life. Provide for it in a responsible way. Join a health fund and insure yourself. You may not always enjoy good health, but the health fund investment will protect you'. This Government, on the other hand, attacks private medical insurance, distracting people by an attitude which suggests that the Government can provide for all exigencies. In effect, no government can afford to do this and it is foolish to try to do so. But it is part of the socialist lore that medical care should be provided free. So Government members deceive people into a complacent approach. Then they are surprised when the system breaks down. People are distressed, but their Government ignores that distress with its `too bad' attitude. There is another aspect. The Government has engendered-and the Institute must take responsibility for this outcome-a sorry relationship between the medical profession and the Government. The non-medical Dr Deeble was always on hand to the non-medical Minister to jump on the representatives of the profession. Clearly this has provided a disincentive for the best medical attitude to be encouraged and brought to bear on any problem. This great profession, with a reputation for public service second to none, has been impugned on the argument that there are some whose records, rightly, should be questioned. Where is the evidence to suggest that co-operation between the Minister and the profession is adequate to the crisis now before us? I believe that the Government needs to spend less time in the academic activities of this group-I refer to the Institute-and much more time in the practical affairs of the present crisis in health care. We all know that the socialist nostrums are not going to provide a way out. It is the lack of any sense of urgency in Government which is causing people to approach the issue with as much frustration as dismay. But the crisis is upon us, and the public need is urgent; and the irrelevance of this legislation offers no reassurance at all that the Government is in any way disposed to change direction. Dr Charlesworth —What was that about? Mr JENKINS(Scullin)(10.55) —Indeed, the honourable member for Perth might ask what that was about. It was intriguing to listen to the contributions to this debate of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). It is intriguing that the honourable member for Warringah should suggest that we can blame all the ills he perceives in the health system upon the Australian Institute of Health, which has existed since August 1984. Indeed, it is unfortunate that he should use his contribution today to criticise in the way he has Dr Deeble who, I think, represents one of the great reformers of recent times in dealing with health in Australia. It is also of interest that he describes the Institute as a gimmick. it is also interesting that he ignores the major thrust of what the Institute is being asked to achieve. He might do well to read an interesting chapter, chapter 4, in the report of the Better Health Commission entitled `Looking Forward to Better Health'. The chapter discusses `Intervening for Health: Ethics, politics and money'. It might be enlightening for him to look at alternative attitudes to his to public health. I quote the beginning of that chapter: Ultimately, it is the individual who must take the decision to abandon unhealthy behaviour. But, as has been noted, social and economic factors often discourage or even prevent such change, and individuals may not be aware of or may be unwilling to acknowledge the need for change. In any case, changing health behaviour is not easy; it can be a frustrating and lengthy process. Getting back to the legislation before us, as has been stated, the Australian Institute of Health Bill will establish the Australian Institute of Health as a statutory authority. Essentially the functions of the Institute will be to collect and provide assistance in the production of health related statistics, to conduct and promote research into the health of the people of Australia, and, thirdly, to undertake studies into the provision and effectiveness of health services and health technology. The reasons for the establishment of the Institute are manifold, but they arise out of a number of committees and inquiries that have suggested the need for the type of functions that the Institute will perform. The first of these that one might cite is the 1979 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. This was followed by the 1980 report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the 1980 Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. All of these reports indicated the need for independent, objective and publicly available analysis of the economics of health and other related issues. Therefore, despite the inaction of honourable members opposite, as a first step in August 1984, this Government established the Australian Institute of Health, as part of the Department of Health. It asked the Institute to conduct research and studies into a wide range of health matters; but, in particular, to focus on public health, social medicine, health statistics and health economics. Why is there a need to establish the Institute as a statutory body? A number of important aspects need to be stressed. There is a need for the Institute to be seen as an independent agency to ensure and to encourage its long term viability. This independence will also encourage the co-operation that under the present set-up its position might in some way be prejudiced in the negotiations for funding, et cetera. Another reason, which was outlined by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in his second reading speech, is the need to ensure confidentiality. Professional bodies such as the Australian Medical Association have suggested that they would prefer that the Institute be seen as an independent data collection agency. In fact, perhaps the Institute under its proposed structure will be better suited to attracting world class researchers to involve themselves in the work of the Institute. Today I wish to dwell on the first of those functions that I read out-that is, the collection of health-related statistics. I digress slightly to talk about a young physician who was involved in German politics and health in the 19th century, Rudolf Virchow. This gentleman was a leading member of the Progressives in the Reichstag during the 1860s and 1870s and also one of the leading pathologists of his time. He is credited with the discovery and pioneering of cell pathology. He was also active in the development of modern methods of public health. Pinson's Modern Germany: Its History and Civilisation has this to say about Virchow: . . . one of the leading figures in modern medicine, early came to realize the interconnections of science, freedom, and social policy, and because of this he entered politics while carrying on, at the same time, his scientific work. He became one of the most vigorous champions of political liberalism in Germany and one of the most bitter opponents of Bismarkian policies. But in the land where science was so greatly revered, the political ideas of Virchow failed to take hold and to the end of his days he remained one of the leaders of an ineffectual opposition. To this day, while the contributions of Virchow to science, medicine, and public health are retained in the public memory in Germany, his political liberalism is practically forgotten. The reason that I introduced Virchow into this debate is that I want to refer to a statement by him which I believe crystallises the importance of medical statistics. While it is a statement from the nineteenth century, it is still relevant. Virchow stated: Medical statistics will be our standard of measurement: we will weigh life for life and see where the dead lie thicker, among the workers or among the privileged. It is perhaps now apt to dwell on Australia's performance in the area of statistical collection. The inquiries that I have already mentioned were critical of such collection. But there are two reference bodies of recent times that I want to refer to. One was a conference conducted by ANZSERCH, the Australian and New Zealand Society for Epidemiology and Research, in August 1985, which conducted a workshop on national health statistics. The workshop was attended by a wide range of participants from ANZSERCH, the National Committee on Health and Vital Statistics, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the different State, Commonwealth and Territory health departments, the National Health and Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, the School of Public Health, and so on. It is interesting that they investigated our performance in the field of collection of statistics. Their comments on our present performance were not glowing. They compared us to a number of comparable countries and found that, in the area of collection of vital statistics, of the 16 countries surveyed, we were ahead only of Portugal. In the area of hospital statistics, which includes facilities, manpower and financial statistics, Australia was the only country with no national statistics. The workshop came to the conclusion that, on this basis, Australian health statistics were not just poor but grossly inadequate by international standards. In the discussions of the workshop, much mention was made of the United States of America National Health Statistics Center. This Center operates under a law which not only mandates specific surveys, but provides that that body should collect statistics on a wide range of matters. For instance, this body collects statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability of the population of the United States; the impact of illness and disability on the population; environmental, social and other health hazards; determinants of health; health resources; utilisation of health care; health care costs; and a host of other matters. The workshop saw fit to re-emphasise its decisions of 1976, when it held a similar conference. The preamble to the recommendations reads: This National Workshop expresses its concern over the lack of sufficient timely and appropriate data necessary for policy making . . . The workshop recommended: A national health statistics agency be established as part of the Australian Institute of Health. It should be advised by an expert committee linked with appropriate committees of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Of course, these conclusions were reached not only as a result of the deliberations of this workshop. We need only refer to the Better Health Commission's report to which I referred earlier. The report contains a section which is simply headed: `The lack of statistics'. Perhaps that says it all. The Better Health Commission identified a number of areas regarding the ad hoc nature in which statistics are collected in Australia. It came to this conclusion: This varied and incomplete approach reflects the lack of central national commitment to collecting health statistics. For instance, it highlighted these points: Since 1977, there has been no comprehensive national collection of data on smoking, to enable smoking rates to be compared between States, although the Victorian Anti-Cancer Council has partially filled this gap. Alcohol consumption figures are also unavailable. Dietary change appears to be one of the most important factors behind the recent improvements in adult health (especially the decline in heart disease mortality) and may offer one of the best prospects for further improvement. Yet there is almost no information at State level, let alone at national level, about what people are eating. These are examples as to why organisations such as the Better Health Commission stress the need for the establishment of a national centre for health statistics as a matter of high priority. As a response to these conclusions of bodies, it is the Government's intention through this legislation to further strengthen the Australian Institute of Health. Its functions have been acknowledged, even by the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker, who has indicated that there is a need to have a data base which can be used for priority setting in order to compare cost, quality and outcome. Of course the Opposition, opposing the legislation merely because it sets up a statutory authority, has not indicated any other alternative as to how it would go about it. The honourable member for Barker seemed to indicate that he felt there was a need for such a body, but that some other body would in some way come upon the scene and take up that need. I think that that reflects a basic difference between this Government and the coalition. In many areas of importance to the public, whether it be public housing or public health, the Opposition wants to step away and hope that others will take up the running. I think that that is unfortunate. In conclusion, I say simply that since the 1940s when the Curtin and Chifley governments fought for the right of the Commonwealth Government to legislate in the area of health, Labor governments have continued the struggle to bring efficiency and equity to the health system for all Australians. The Australian Government has a moral obligation to foster and monitor research on such basic issues as public health. It is one area in particular in which the non-interventionist basis of small government is not just inappropriate but dangerous. The connections between health and freedom are self-evident, but too often are taken for granted. The World Health Organisation has defined health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease and infirmity. Australia's high standard of public health in comparison to that of other countries, particularly in the Third World, must not be squandered at the hands of complacency, nor sacrificed to economic rationalism. I therefore have pleasure in supporting this Bill. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(11.10) —Along with the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), I support the Opposition's view that the Australian Institute of Health does not need to be a statutory authority. This is at a time when Medicare costs have blown out. The levy raises about $1.6 billion and the total cost of health care in Australia is about $8.9 billion, which gives the lie to the fact that we have efficiency and equity in the health care system, as suggested by the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins). In fact, health care costs have blown out considerably since the present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has been in charge and the present Medicare arrangements have been in place. For many years there has been a growing awareness of the need for careful study of health needs as a means of improving the health of Australians. In 1979 the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare identified the need for Australian health services to be evaluated, the setting of goals and objectives, the establishment of standards and the collection of appropriate data. The report said that it was imperative that proper evaluation occur in order to provide information essential to the proper planning of health and welfare systems and to the efficient and effective operation of these agencies. Similarly, in 1980 the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, chaired Mr Jim Jamison, gave support to the recommendation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts that a bureau of health economics be established. It was envisaged that the bureau would undertake identification of internal and external factors influencing the efficiency in hospitals and other health institutions. It also recommended that the bureau would collate comparative statistics and financial data on a national basis. These calls were largely answered in September 1984 with the introduction of the Australian Institute of Health, under the auspices of the Department of Health, established along lines similar to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in the Department of Primary Industry and having the principal functions of reporting on priorities and progress and conducting or supporting research into the use of health services and the health status of the Australian population, with particular emphasis on health economics, health statistics and health services planning. In addition, the Institute is required to develop, collate and publish national health statistics in conjunction with other relevant bodies, and service the national committee on health and vital statistics. The Institute also provides advice and research support to the Australian Health Services Council, and other Commonwealth and State bodies, as well as collaborating with international health agencies in meeting the needs for health development, research and training. I refer the House to the cost of setting up this body as a statutory authority. It would make the Institute a growth department and would provide a more complex arrangement. I have no doubt that the organisation would have to find another building and would have to employ more public servants. Finally, it would not be fully accountable to the Minister. It would lack the co-ordinating element in terms of the Health Department which it now has. Personally, I accept the need for some statistics for the health restoration of Australians and for the prevention of illnesses in men and women in the States around the Commonwealth. I refer honourable members to the Better Health Commission reports. I commend the Minister for setting up the Better Health Commission which has provided the data included in its three reports. Indeed, in the statistics area, the Australian Institute of Health Bill emerges from comments made in those reports. In a country such as Australia, with 25 per cent of the work force involved in the Public Service, it is interesting to note that the Better Health Commission takes the view that some of our statistical collections leave something to be desired. I would have thought that the large number of public servants that we have at Federal, State and local levels would be able to collect these statistics. The report suggests that health surveys are in about the middle range compared to other countries in identifying people's health status. In the vital statistics area, where State governments collect data on births, deaths and marriages, there is an obvious lack of co-operation at the national level. However, it would be hard to identify areas where the establishment of a statutory Institute of Health would help to overcome these difficulties. For those people who have been associated with hospital administration, there seems to be no lack of statistics and information about patients required by government agencies, both State and Federal. I find it difficult to come to any conclusion as to how a statutory authority would improve this process. It would appear that an improvement in the data collection process and procedures would be a much more important feature than a Federal statutory authority enforcing the statistical collection. Hospitals deliver health care at the State level, either through publicly funded State hospitals or through privately funded operations. The base statistics are collected at the hospital door and interferences by Federal authorities will not assist. In trying to monitor health risks there is a grey area of statistical analysis and interpretation. The Better Health Commission agrees that those private groups have been better able to interpret these monitoring areas than government agencies. The Commission refers particularly to the Victorian Anti-Cancer Council and the way in which it has provided data on the risk factor for those who indulge in smoking or other potential cancer-forming habits. It also refers to the National Heart Foundation, a privately funded operation which has been successful in monitoring the heart disease risk potential of Australians. Medicare is delivered at the State level and a similar problem is emerging in Victoria where it has been suggested by the Government that administrative arrangements be increased. In Victoria there are 34,000 patients in hospital queues awaiting treatment, and the position there is not improving. In recent days the nurses have been on strike and elective surgical operations have been banned, thus increasing the problems of patients in that State seeking treatment. In Victoria the shadow Minister for Health, the Hon. Mark Birrell, has researched these matters in some detail. He is on record as indicating the disastrous performance of the Victorian Health Commission. The State has reduced by 2.4 per cent in real terms funds for up-front hospital care-that is, hospital facilities and the availability of services to patients have been reduced. On the other hand, there has been a 10 per cent increase in funds for the administration of the Health Department. Those people seeking treatment are getting less money, but the bureaucrats in the Department are getting more money to administer a disastrous health system in that State. I refer to the subject of capital projects to demonstrate the problem that Victorians are facing. A sum of $21m has been spent on a new 10-storey wing in the eye, ear, nose and throat hospital in East Melbourne, but that new wing has been empty since July 1986 and I understand that it could have served 100,000 out- patients if it had been in operation. That is the state of Medicare in Victoria-more administration such as is suggested in this Bill, but less delivery of patient care. The philosophy of Medicare, as the honourable member for Warringah indicated, is the perception that the Government will provide a free health system. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in launching Medicare claimed that it would be cheaper, fairer and better, and, of course, we know that that is not the case. The attitude now prevalent in the community is that the Government will look after the health of all Australians. We now find that Australians are taking out private health insurance to make sure that they overcome the difficulties of Medicare. In fact, 50 per cent of Australians have taken out private health insurance. Half the population have voted with their feet and taken the view that Medicare is neither free nor adequate. In fact they are paying twice: They are paying the levy and they are paying their own private health insurance, for two basic reasons. The first is to make sure that they get a doctor of their choice, and the second to make sure that they can get into a hospital when they want to. I turn to the reports of the Better Health Commission. I commended the Minister for Health on setting up the Commission, and I also commend the members of the Commission for providing these three reports. I notice that the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) is in the House, and I commend him as a member of the Commission on these excellent reports. They have put forward an alternative point of view to the attitude and perceptions that Medicare has brought about in health care in this country. The reports suggest a change from the approach of curing those who are ill to a preventive medicine approach. Volume 1 of the first report, which I have read with great interest, sets out the sort of approach that the Better Health Commission is trying to bring about in Australia in order to change the attitudes of administrators, patients and medical practitioners. Its approach aims to make Australians healthier, fitter and more able to look after themselves. Of course, in the long term that will save the Australian taxpayers money. I turn to the goals and strategies of the Better Health Commission's three task forces. I draw the attention of the House to the details of the first volume, in which the three task forces set out the areas of their approach to improving the health of Australians. The task force on cardiovascular disease has some very practical and sensible approaches to heart disease in Australians up to the year 2000. It hopes to reduce the number of smokers to 15 per cent of the population. It hopes to increase the number of adults with a lower percentage of cholesterol in the blood and to reduce to less than 5 per cent the number of adults in the population who have high blood pressure. It also hopes to increase to 60 per cent the proportion of adults participating in sufficient activity to achieve and maintain physical fitness and health. The nutrition task force has similar objectives which are fairly simple, straightforward and practical. By the year 2000 it hopes to reduce the prevalence of overweight and obesity from 38 per cent to 25 per cent of the population. It also hopes to reduce the fat contribution to the Australian diet from 38 per cent to 33 per cent and to reduce the contribution of refined sugars and the intake of salt and alcoholic beverages. It aims to increase breastfeeding of babies to the age of three months and to increase the fibre content of the Australian diet. The third approach of the Commission is the establishment of the injury task force which, by the year 2000, aims to reduce the number of road traffic injuries, both fatal and non-fatal, by 20 per cent. It also aims to reduce the number of alcohol related crashes by 15 per cent, to reduce the number of pool drownings of children under the age of 12 years by 95 per cent-I commend the Commission for looking at this particular problem-and to reduce the number of drownings of children under the age of two years by 90 per cent. The task force also hopes to reduce by 50 per cent the number of playground accidents involving children and requiring hospital treatment. Lastly, in the injury area, it hopes to reduce by 50 per cent the number of hospital admissions of children suffering accidental poisoning from drugs and household poisons. I commend the Commission, which was chaired by Dr Llewellyn-Jones. Members of the Commission are widely based and their approach in talking to community groups and those persons interested in health care and research was commendable. For the information of honourable members I think it is wise to look at the second and third volumes of the report in which the Commission has carried on its very good work. In the second volume it has gone into considerable detail in the chapter entitled `Cardiovascular disease: preventing an unnecessary way of death'. That is a matter which is very close to all Australians-the possibility of a heart attack. Some of the details, research and practical suggestions about the way in which Australians should look after their own health are to be commended. Another chapter is entitled `Better nutrition for Australians'. Again, some of the details incorporated in the second volume are practical, sensible and not full of scientific data which the average Australian cannot understand. In another chapter entitled `The injury task force' a number of positive suggestions are made. The fourth chapter is entitled `Cancer in Australia: prospects for prevention and control'. In this chapter the Commission comes up with some observations and suggestions. It also looks at the problem of mental health in a chapter entitled `Mental ill-health in Australia'. In volume 3 some of these areas have been pursued further. Some of the chapter headings indicate the trust and thinking which is so commendable compared with the attitude that Medicare engenders in the Australian population. One of the chapters is entitled `Prevention of disability', while `Promoting health in older people' is another. Honourable members will notice the emphasis on a positive attitude. Another is entitled `Youth health: it's everybody's concern'. Other chapters are entitled `Financial incentives for the promotion of health' and `Health and the media in Australia: an uneasy relationship'. Again I stress the ability of members of the House and members of the media to promote the positive attitude that health is not just a financial concern but is one that can be controlled by individuals. Individuals can improve their own health status. A further chapter is entitled `Preventive medicine in undergraduate education'-again a new initiative, a new tack in changing the attitudes of the medical profession to health care in Australia. Yet another chapter is entitled `The future of public health research in Australia'. I commend the Commission and the sorts of attitudes that emanate from those three volumes. I also commend those private practitioners who have taken up this sort of view, particularly Dr Andre Kretsch, of Melbourne, who runs a preventative medicine clinic. He is actually putting into practice the sort of programs that the Better Health Commission is suggesting, by educating his patients, by monitoring their health on a yearly basis, by encouraging them to stick to a particular fitness regime and by keeping individual patients fit and out of the public health system over a period. I commend Dr Kretsch and others who are setting up preventative health clinics rather than concentrating on curative measures, which has been the traditional way in which medical practices have been run. Finally, I point out that the implementation of the Australian Institute of Health as a statutory authority is really contrary to the sort of approach that the Better Health Commission has been suggesting. We need a health department that collects the statistics in a co-operative manner and that can put them together to help the sort of research that the Better Health Commission has advocated. We need fewer taxes and charges in the health system. We need less health costs and we must encourage happier, fitter Australians to take the general attitude of preventative medicine and preventative health programs. We do not want bigger and growing statutory authorities spending more money and getting fewer results for the personal health needs of individuals and the health of future generations of young Australians. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(11.28) —We have heard three speakers from the Opposition benches and, while the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) wandered somewhat and made the misleading statement that the Australian Institute of Health as a statutory body was contrary to the suggestions of the Better Health Commission, I must give him credit for the fact that he is the only one of the three Opposition speakers who grappled with the problem of preventative versus curative medicine. For too long in this country the thrust of our medical education and our debates on health care have been directed towards curative rather than preventative medicine. The honourable member took some time to read out the priorities and goals that have been set by the Better Health Commission. Indeed, those priorities and goals are laudable and we, who were members of the Better Health Commission, believe that they are realistic. But we must know where we are now before we can set goals. We must establish the present situation, the problems and the risks, and to do that in Australia we need to collect a substantial database of statistics. We need a national centre for health statistics, and, that is one of the recommendations in the Better Health Commission report. We need to be able to determine the causes and risks and to establish the need. We need to be able to plan programs to educate people and that will eradicate or minimise the risks. We need to be able to evaluate programs. We need to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. It is important that we can assess the efficacy of treatments. Indeed, information needs to be disseminated. The great problem that we face in this country in the debate on health care is that we have not had such a centre for collection of data and we have had not had such statistical bases on which to make the correct judgments and on which to establish our research bases. We have only to look at the history of this Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the initiatives that he has taken in this area to understand that this Government, more than any other in this country, has taken up the problem of prevention and realised that the long term planning, the long term goals, of health delivery require a much more substantial input of energy and effort into prevention rather than cure. The honourable member for Corangamite was the only member of the Opposition who faced up to that problem, and I give him credit for doing so. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who was a Health Minister in the previous Government for more than two years, talked about Medicare, medical entrepreneurs, the hospital system and elective surgery-just about everything except the thrust of this legislation, the Australian Institute of Health Bill-and indeed he missed the point completely. We are not talking about short term solutions but about long term planning. Long term planning in health care requires the establishment of a body such as this Institute. It is important that we understand that. Of course, the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), as he usually does, complained that whatever we do would be unnecessarily costly. Of course, he offered no alternative. In government one has to face priorities and there has to be an allocation of resources. It is necessary. The honourable member accepts the view that our database is insufficient and that we need to improve it, but he did not offer us an alternative. Time and time again we hear him in this place complaining about the unnecessary cost of everything. What was done by the Opposition in government was very little. This Minister established in 1984 the Australian Institute of Health as part of the Department of Health. That was a response to a number of reports that had come out in previous years. Those reports have been canvassed by previous speakers in this place. They are the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in 1979, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts in 1980 and the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals in 1980. All those reports suggest that we need to collect information better and to evaluate programs in health and welfare better. Indeed, the function of the Australian Institute of Health, as it was established by the Minister in 1984, was to research a wide range of health issues, focusing on public health-public health in this country has been considered by people for a long time as fixing sewers; it is much more than that, I might say-social medicine, health statistics and health economics. In 1985, continuing the thrust and concern of Kerr White in respect of the area of public health, we had the establishment of the Independent Kerr White Review of Research and Educational Requirements for Public Health and Tropical Health in Australia. Indeed, two of the recommendations of that report were that we should establish a health statistics and information centre and a technology and health services assessment centre, both of which are contained within the establishment of the Australian Institute of Health as a statutory body. We should recognise that it is important that this be a statutory body. We have had all sorts of suggestions from the Opposition that this will be more costly and that there is no reason for it. It is important that there be an actual and perceived independence and that we encourage long term viability and long term establishment of an organisation which provides a huge database for statistics on health in this country. The honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) mentioned the very disparate way in which statistics are collected at the moment in this country. The United States National Centre for Health Statistics stated in its International health data guide in 1984 the fact that, in the area of collection of vital statistics-those of births and deaths-Australia rates fifteenth out of sixteen like nations; and in the area of hospital statistics we were rated sixteenth out of sixteen. This was in 1984. We are very poor at that. The reason for that is that statistics are collected by the States, private health organisations, local governments, hospitals and the Commonwealth Government. There is no co-ordination, and there is a requirement for some way in which we can tie this together. It is believed that the co-operation of the States and Territories will be brought about by the establishment of an independent organisation. That is what they want. Through this legislation that is what this Government is doing. Researchers from all over the country have been writing to me, and to other members of parliament, I dare say, with respect to confidentiality where epidemiological data is being collected. With this statutory authority an ethics committee will be established, following recommendations from the National Health and Medical Research Council, which even the shadow Minister has said he considers an independent body. Those recommendations and the establishment of an ethics committee will ensure that researchers can be convinced that the epidemiological data that is collected will have confidentiality attached to it. Professional bodies, including the Australian Medical Association-which, God forbid, should be on our side in this debate-request that the independence of the new data collection agency be established by its being a statutory authority. On top of that, the opportunity exists for the Director to employ people for this authority on contract and short term bases to do specific tasks and to carry out research. World-class researchers can be attracted to the AIH by using this mechanism. I believe that the creation of a statutory authority is the only way in which we can do that. Why do we require this body? We have already established that there is a lack of comprehensive information and a lack of effective assessment processes in Australia. We are talking about a $16 billion a year industry, financed by the Commonwealth and largely managed by the States. We are talking about the spending of $1,000 per person in Australia every year. It is big money, and it is incumbent on all members of the House and this Parliament that we should, wherever possible, make sure that that money is spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible. We already know that the broad thrust of health care in this country is directed towards curing people who are already sick. I do not see any solution to that, and that will continue for some time, but we need to start to turn it around. There is a necessity to start talking about prevention; there is a necessity to start talking about long term solutions and a way in which we can improve the health of this country. After all, the health of every individual is probably Australia's greatest resource, and it is important that this Government address the way in which we spend large amounts of money in health care delivery. It has been established already by the Better Health Commission and by previous speakers in this debate that we are very poor at collecting statistics. Funding for medical research in this country-again I take this information from the Better Health Commission report-is directed very largely towards curative medicine. If we look at the proportions of total research funds allocated in 1984, we find that the basic sciences received 40 per cent of the money, clinical sciences received 56 per cent of the money, and public health and behavioural research received 4 per cent. Again, the same story emerges if one looks at the way in which money is spent on research into cancer. Reports of the State cancer councils of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia show that, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, 67.3 per cent of the money that was available was devoted to cell and tumour biology, immunology and carcinogenesis and to radiology and treatment; 30 per cent was devoted to clinical research, including chemotherapy and pathological research; and only 2.3 per cent was given to identifying environmental factors and behaviours that increase the risk of cancer and how such behaviours can be changed. Clearly, the direction of the expenditure of money in research and the collection of statistics is away from that which we would see as being most beneficial in the long term for the prevention of disease in this country. The establishment of this statutory authority will, I hope, provide the first thrust in the turnaround of that direction. All of us know and understand the particular problems. I would like to talk about one or two of them. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) talked about assessing the efficacy of treatment. She talked about a wonderful machine that blows up kidney stones within the system and therefore enables us to avoid surgery in the case of people who have kidney stones. Fairly recently in this country we had controversial discussions-I had a number of discussions on this matter with the Minister-about the establishment of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, NMRI, which provides those in diagnostic medicine with a new tool which can substantially improve the accuracy of diagnosis. Indeed, the evaluation and implementation strategy which went along with the establishment of this technology in Australia was something that we had to work out, in a sense, first off. We did not have some sort of body or basis on which we could establish rules or ground rules for the implementation of that new technology. It is necessary, and it will be part of the function of the Institute, to establish those sorts of guidelines. We can see that there are changing patterns of smoking in this country. Young people tend to be smoking more and older people and men are smoking less. We need to know why that is occurring. We need to establish whether or not that is having a significant effect on the changes of disease patterns. We know that there has been a significant effect on the changes of disease patterns. We know that there has been a significant improvement in statistics in respect of heart disease in this country. It would be useful for us to know whether or not that is related to what people are eating. But we do not know what Australians are eating. We have not done the research. Hopefully this Institute will direct its attention to that area. We know that there are massive problems in this country in relation to alcohol abuse. Again, we do not know what people are drinking, how much and how it affects them. It is necessary for us to find out more information. The honourable member for Corangamite touched very briefly on the aspect of training doctors. That is a very important subject. The vast majority of doctors are trained 99 per cent of the time in treating people who are already sick and one per cent of the time in helping them to avoid illness. It is necessary for us to change the direction in the way in which we train doctors. We need to talk about how doctors are paid. This seems to be one of the obsessions of the Opposition. In fact, it is very important that there be incentive within the payment system for doctors to see patients less rather than an incentive to see them more. In fact, that is the position at the moment. There is a substantial opportunity for us to use the media to change the way in which people view their health, to change their habits and perhaps provide some sort of alteration to the risk factors which exist. We need to be able the better to use the media. We need to be able to evaluate changes that are occurring and to react to them better. Only by having a substantial data base are we going to be able to do that. We have in this country perhaps one of the major public health problems, which is growing every day, that we will ever face in this century, and that is the problem of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. Although people are living longer and dying less from heart disease and other diseases, more and more of them are suffering from cancer. In addition, more and more young people in particular are suffering from AIDS. Perhaps we need a different type of delivery for those people who are terminally ill with these conditions. Indeed, only two weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend the opening of Cottage Hospice in Western Australia whose beginnings and establishment had been controversial. This institution is the result of the work and the very strong push of people who are involved in the Cancer Council in Western Australia. The Cottage Hospice claims that it can deliver high quality care on a one-to-one basis for terminally ill patients for $100 a day. That is substantially less than the present cost in our public hospital system. We need to know whether or not that is the case. If that is the case, perhaps the Government needs to establish in the area of hospice care a much more substantial policy than it has at present. That is an area in which there is tremendous growth because more and more people are suffering from cancer as they get older and live longer. Indeed, the problem of AIDS means that there will be the same sort of growth as in the area of cancer treatment. To provide the best care in an economically rational way we need to establish where we are now; we need to know what the position is; we need to know the trends; we need to have some understanding of the risks involved; we need to plan and evaluate programs; we need to know the effectiveness of our interventions; we need to assess the efficacy of our treatments. All of those things will be within the ambit of this Institute. I hope that the Australian Institute of Health, as a statutory body, will be able to do the job. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation. I hope that regardless of the effectiveness of this move, we will continue to push in the direction of preventive medicine and perhaps allocate an increased amount of our resources in that direction. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(11.46) —in reply-I think the abysmal contribution of the Opposition to the health debate has been typified by this debate on the Australian Institute of Health Bill. In saying that, I would like to exclude the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) because, while I might disagree with some of his arguments, at least they are capable of respect. They were very relevant to the issues at hand. I am afraid that I cannot say the same about his seniors, the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), and the ex-Health Minister, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). I hope that health professionals throughout this country will read their contributions to this debate on the Australian Institute of Health. There is an agreement on all sides that the level of health statistics and basic health data in this country are very poor and that we compare very badly with most other advanced industrial societies. Indeed, as I said in my second reading speech, that is not something that we can cure overnight. These are long term problems. These problems are the result of long term neglect by previous governments and, specifically, by a party which has been in power for most of the last 30 years. We are not going to be able to overcome these long term problems overnight. My colleagues the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Jenkins) and the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) pointed out quite clearly the whole range of reports over the last decade recommending an independent body to carry out the collection of this data. Indeed, some of those reports-for instance, the Independent Review of Research and Educational Requirements for Public Health and Tropical Health in Australia undertaken by Professor Kerr White-made it quite explicit that the statistical collection should be in a statutory authority. The honourable member for Warringah, who was for two years the Minister for Health, scarcely mentioned his neglect. When faced with some of these reports he did nothing in that two-year period to address this very difficult problem. The issue between us is simply whether this body should be a statutory authority. We have had again a very negative approach from the Opposition which says: `No, it should not be a statutory authority'. I hope that the people in the other place will read the arguments advanced for rejecting the motion of a statutory authority. The honourable member for Warringah said nothing about the issue. He gave his standard speech on waiting lists which he has given in every health debate in this Parliament for the last two years. The ex-Minister for Health made no contribution and produced no argument whatsoever for not making this body a statutory authority. The only argument produced by the shadow Minister for Health was a paranoiac argument about the activities of another statutory authority in the health area-the Health Insurance Commission. His obsessive speech on the HIC would have been laughable except for the tragic fact that this argument is simply warping his judgment over a whole range of health issues. He has a complete obsession with the so-called wickedness of the Health Insurance Commission. We have really had very little in the way of an argument opposed to making the Australian Institute of Health a statutory authority. I agree with the honourable member for Barker that we should not proliferate statutory authorities in this country. During my four years as Minister for Health we have created no statutory authorities-this is the first one. The reason for doing so is simply the compulsion of experience. We have endeavoured to carry out the task of a national collection of health data in this country through the Department of Health. I am convinced, and I think most health professionals in this country are convinced, that it is not possible to do this through that method. It will not be effective. If in fact this Bill does not go through, in another 10 years time we will be in the same position with the quality of health statistics in this country. There are three major reasons. First of all, we are very dependent on State governments for the basic health statistics because they are the deliverers of health services. They have made it perfectly clear that unless we have a body divorced from the Commonwealth Department of Health-separate, independent and not under that Commonwealth department-we will not gain State confidence to provide statistics. I think that is understandable because a lot of this information is very sensitive and under this Government and previous governments there have often been adverse relations between the Commonwealth Department of Health and the State departments. States are willing, under the proper guarantees and the arrangements that we have reached with them, to pass that information on through a separate statutory authority. So I have to say that, as a result of our experience, we will only be able to get that data from the State health departments if we have an independent statutory authority in the way proposed. That is the first reason for going in this direction. The second reason is that I believe that the only way to ensure the long term viability of the Australian Institute of Health is through a statutory authority. I was convinced of the rightness of that judgment by a passing reference just made by the ex-Minister for Health, the honourable member for Warringah. He said: `We should spend less time with academic pursuits of this sort of group'. As Health Minister I have to say that, inevitably, within the Health Department the concern is with the immediate, particular and short term problems. If we have the Institute within that framework, under the Department, when there have to be cuts and when there has to be restraint the body that will be affected will be that which relates to the long term aspects. We could say: `Yes, we can put that off this year. We can cut back those activities'. If we want to have a long term, viable body as a collector of data in the health area we have to exclude it from that overall control of the Commonwealth Health Department or any health department. Of course, this is the way that most countries have gone. In order to ensure that these kinds of activities will not be subject to that day to day interference and to the immediate constraints imposed on departments, most countries have created independent bodies to secure these basic health statistics to provide their independent data on the health status of their nations. That is the second reason. The third reason is that it is important that we attract to this body researchers of very top quality. The collection of health data is not just a matter of collecting statistics; it involves very difficult debates about how we categorise these statistics. For instance, we have been bedevilled for years in this country by definitions of the Aboriginal population so that we can get Aboriginal health statistics. In this very complex area we need top class people with top class research backgrounds. It is much more difficult to attract them into a health department, into a sort of basic Public Service operation, than it will be into an independent statutory authority. That is the third reason we have moved in that direction. Of all those reasons, to my mind the overwhelming justification is the fact that we are dependent on the States. Without these guarantees of independence and separation from the Commonwealth Health Department we will not get adequate statistical material. Therefore, it seems to me that the argument overwhelmingly is that we should move in this direction. I ask the House to support these proposals and I hope that those in another place who consider the arguments that have been presented in this House will opt in the same direction. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 49 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C. Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E. Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. Maher, M. J. Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H. Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Conquest, B. J. Sharp, J. Cowan, D. B. Shipton, R. F. Downer, A. J. G. Smith, W. Everingham, P. A. E. Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Brown, John Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(12.05) —It has been four years since the Hawke Labor Government came to office and four years since the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) took over the reins of the Department of Health. Four years into his administration, we are still considering legislation which is so typical of this Government. The National Health Amendment Bill attempts to patch up the administration of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by changing the law so chemists will be able to be paid without the Government breaking the law. This cut and paste Bill epitomises the Government's health policy as it desperately applies band-aids in an attempt to hold together a health system it has destroyed. The facts speak for themselves. Under Labor, the public is disheartened and confused by the inability of our public hospital system to provide hospital beds. This is something that people took for granted in the past, whether or not they had insurance. Under Labor, doctors first in New South Wales and now in the Australian Capital Territory are so fed up with the Government's treatment of them under Medicare that they are leaving the system. Under Labor, nurses disputes continue to erupt as the morale of health providers falls to an all-time low. Of course, the Minister will claim that none of this is his responsibility. He says that it is just an enormous coincidence that is has all happened under his administration and since the introduction of the ill-fated and ill-conceived Government Medicare monopoly. But a detailed analysis of his stewardship shows us that it is not coincidental; it is a direct result of Labor's rotten policies, incompetent administration and a lack of leadership which has brought our health delivery system to its knees. Public hospital queues have trebled in Medicare's first three years and they continue to grow. The cost of health care continues to spiral for both the Government and the consumer. Under Medicare, the Government has moved the nation as a whole on to a higher plane of medical servicing. This is being done by fostering bulk billing, whereby people are encouraged to believe that medical services are free. The provision of anything free leads to waste and over-use. When Medicare was first introduced the enrolled population was using an average of 5.8 doctors' services a year. Last year, the average was 7.5 services a year. In other words, there has been a 28 per cent increase in just two years. We now find that the Government's cost of providing medical services has increased by 42 per cent in the first three years of Medicare. The cost of health care for the consumer has risen by more than 26 per cent in the last 12 months alone and the levy was increased by 25 per cent despite this Government's promises not to do so. Pensioners and low income earners have become more and more disadvantaged. They have been unable to receive health services in our public hospitals when they need them. National confidence in the safety and efficacy of drugs approved for use in Australia has been undermined as a result of Labor's rush to promote generic drugs without requiring appropriate safety checks because they are a cheaper alternative to patent brand name products. The remnants of the Minister's Madison Avenue approach to the drug offensive hang like the streamers of yesterday's party, along with the other initiatives of this Government such as the Priority One disaster. Not only has the Minister's policy been a disgrace but also he has a woeful administrative record. Administration of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme under Pharmpay has been a total disaster. The system is so unworkable that last September the processing of doctors' prescriptions was 50 million scripts behind. So against the law the Minister made payments to pharmacists based on an estimate of the volume of business that the pharmacist would do in a month, with a promise to fix it up later. In addition, the security of the Health Insurance Commission has been breached. At the height of Australia's first doctors' walk-out, potentially damaging confidential Medicare information was leaked to the Press. Even today the Minister cannot tell us where that leak came from; yet the Health Insurance Commission is the organisation to which he wants us to entrust more confidential personal information under the identity card proposal. The Minister promised us that by giving the Health Insurance Commission a monopoly it would be cheaper to process Medicare claims; yet the unit price for the Health Insurance Commission to process these claims continues to rise, not fall. Despite the Government's push for bulk billing, despite the rapid growth in the total number of claims and despite the potential for economies of scale, the processing cost per claim processed has gone up, not down. This year the processing cost per Medicare claim has risen from 89c to 96c. That is what happens when one eliminates all competition. The Health Insurance Commission is, of course, a monopoly. Last December the Minister instituted one of the highlights of his administration-a new safety net program for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. A week before it came into effect pharmacists were still waiting for instructions about their new responsibilities under the scheme. Two weeks ago he tried to revise the system for doctors and dentists to refer patients to a specialist. Many of the medical practitioners never even saw the instructions until the program was supposedly in place for three days. In the Minister's administration of the Health Insurance Commission last year he breached various of his own laws no fewer than 17 times. There is nothing new in that really; he did virtually the same thing the year before. We look to the Government for leadership in the administration and delivery of health services; and what do we get? We get the National Health Amendment Bill, just another attempted quick fix which ignores the basic problems. What I have highlighted this morning is the number of administrative blues which this Government has made, which is just a disaster. The health policy of this Government is a disaster and its administration is even worse. This legislation tries to fix up some of the problems which have been shown up in the last year. Clause 3 of the Bill redefines the table of benefits so that, when samples are taken from a patient during a stay in hospital, pathology tests performed after the patient is discharged can be considered as in-patient professional services for the purposes of private hospital insurance benefits. In other words, such tests will be covered by the limited gap insurance arrangements applicable to such charges raised during a hospital stay. We support that change. But why did the Government not take this opportunity to address the problem it has created with all medical services with its aggressive bulk billing policies? I said earlier that the cost of medical services increased by 42 per cent in the first three years of Medicare. Is it any wonder that this is so when we look at the blatant abuses of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law that we see going on around us as a result of bulk billing? Recently I was sent the following information on a new 24-hour clinic. In violation of the rules of the State's medical board, the doctors of this clinic have placed large and prominent advertisements in the neighbourhood newspapers. They have letterboxed leaflets and have even been responsible for soliciting business on the street. Their advertisement states: 24 hour clinic. Appointments are not necessary. Of course one does not need an appointment; queues are for public hospitals. The advertisement continues: Simply come to the surgery at any time! Of course it is saying: `Come on Saturday afternoon, on Sunday or in the evening because Medicare will pay more then'-and the clinic is open 24 hours anyway. The advertisement further states: No payment from patients! That is particularly significant, because Medicare gives the clinic a provider number and a fresh supply of bulk bill forms. This provides it with an intravenous feed into the Federal Treasury. The clinic does not need the patients' money; it has the taxpayers' money. And the Government promotes that policy-`Go along to the doctor. You will not get the bill; it is directed straight to the Government'. Apparently this clinic has the backing of a non-medical businessman. One can only wonder what the financial arrangement between the doctors and their capital backing is. Is it a percentage of the action or a commission? Are the doctors on a salary or a commission? How many times have we seen this situation repeated under Medicare? The Minister continues to state that bulk billing is the preferred billing method under Medicare and remains the policy of this Government. But it is both Medicare and bulk billing which have contributed to the massive increase in the number of medical services supplied in this country and to the abuse of the Medicare system. Bulk billing under Medicare has resulted in our moving to a new and higher plane of medical services. As I have said, the Medicare card is now costing us 42 per cent more than it did when Medicare first started three years ago. Are we a healthier nation for it? Of course not. The Minister will claim that expenditures for medical services this year are right on target. He has said that before, so we looked at the figures. What does it mean? It means that the Department has finally set the percentage increase high enough to accommodate the blowout in the services. Of course they will be on target, if one sets the estimates high enough. I ask: How long will this Government, and how long can the nation, afford to sustain an annual increase of 12.5 per cent in the cost of services under Medicare? The second and main issue addressed by the Bill is the revision of certain administrative procedures of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The national pharmaceutical benefits scheme was changed last year. Under the new safety net program the chronically ill, whose financial burden without the pharmaceutical benefits scheme would be a hardship, are now protected by a maximum contribution for their first 25 prescriptions, after which the supply of all drugs on the PBS is free of charge. When the legislation to change the pharmaceutical benefits scheme was introduced last year I said that the changes were consistent with coalition policy, but I promised that the coalition would carefully monitor its implementation. Regrettably, the introduction of the new scheme was yet another disaster. Patients and pharmacists were given little or no notice of the changes to be made to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. People had not been advised of the new arrangements and at vast expense to the taxpayer the Government had to air freight the documentation to pharmacists in some country areas in order that they might have the required forms on the changeover day. It was absolutely hopeless. It took months to organise the scheme, and this Government is airfreighting material to pharmacists at the death-knock. That is nothing short of yet another example of the gross administrative incompetence of this Government. As I have already indicated, another area of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which has been a disaster has been the reimbursement to pharmacists for prescriptions filled under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Pharmacists were being paid under a scheme called Pharmpay. This involved every script which the pharmacist had filled being sent to the Department of Health where it was reread and put into the computer and then payment was made. In other words, scripts prepared by the patient's doctor are read and filled by the chemist and then submitted to the Department of Health's Pharmpay processing centre for payment. Before payment could be issued the doctor's script had to be reinterpreted by a Pharmpay clerk, coded and manually entered into a computer so that the amount of benefit could be determined and a cheque issued to the chemist. It rapidly became obvious that the system, even though it employed 800 data entry clerks, could not keep up with the rate at which drugs were being dispensed. The processing of scripts fell behind and payments to the pharmacists began to experience serious delays. At September last year there was six months worth of unprocessed scripts piling up in the Pharmpay processing centres around this country. In order to continue making payments to the pharmacists, the Government began, in violation of its own law, to make payments on a monthly basis based on the anticipated average volume of the pharmacists' scripts. These average payments were issued with the understanding that at some time in the future the actual scripts would be processed and reconciling payments based on the benefit value of the scripts that were dispensed would be made. But just how long will it take the Government to make these reconciling payments, knowing that it must also maintain currency for payments for the ongoing program? Last week a pharmacist in Victoria was told by the Department of Health that it will be 1989 before all the old scripts are finally processed and a final accounting of payments made. In the meantime, the pharmacists are bearing the financial brunt of the Government's maladministration of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It was last November when the Attorney-General's office brought to the attention of the Department of Health that it was in violation of the law in making average payments. The average payments method stopped at that time. In my own State of South Australia-also the State of the Minister for Health-I have received reports from pharmacists that their payments for prescriptions already dispensed under the PBS have fallen behind by as much as 60 days. The pharmacist, of course, has paid his rent, salaries to his assistants and staff, the bills of his pharmaceutical suppliers, and the interest to the bank on his Government-induced overdraft; and he will be expected in a couple of weeks time to pay provisional taxes to a government which continues to withhold payment to him for 50 per cent of his sales. It is a scandal and Pharmpay should be scrapped. Clause 11 of the Bill amends the National Health Act to allow the Department of Health to make payments based on an estimate of the drugs dispensed by a pharmacist. While we support this amendment to overcome Labor's disastrous Pharmpay mess, we caution that it is not a solution to this Government's problem in administering the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and that this measure should only be used in exceptional cases to protect the reasonable cash flow of the pharmacist. Meanwhile, the Government must make a serious commitment to rectify the situation caused by the illegal and excessive use of the average payment system over the last three years. I understand that a proposal I put forward about 18 months ago to pay pharmacists on the basis of the computer data generated by the pharmacist in filling the scripts is now belatedly being adopted by the Government-and not before time. Of course, why should all the scripts be reread another time by a government clerk? It should be easy enough to audit the chemist's computer data record, and payment should be based on that computer data record. Clause 5 of this Bill introduces an amendment to the administration of the pharmaceutical safety net program. When the pharmacist has issued a health benefit card to a person who qualifies for free drugs under the program the pharmacist is required to submit the supporting documentation to the Department of Health, instead of holding it for 12 months as was previously required. So the pharmacist is being given a month to submit the documentation instead of having to hold it for 12 months. Clause 6 of the Bill establishes a fee to compensate the pharmacist for the administrative efforts in issuing the health benefit card. We do not oppose those amendments. Clause 4 of the Bill allows the Minister to make exceptions to the amount of the maximum quantity of a drug to be dispensed for the purchase to qualify as one of the 25 scripts to be purchased under the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme safety net program. The authority to make exceptions is to be reserved for dangerous or addictive drugs. The Government should monitor the program with respect to this provision. I am amazed, however, that the Minister has the effrontery to claim that his interest in the maximum quantity of drugs dispensed has to do with his concern over the safety of patients. This claim comes from the same Minister who allowed the introduction of cheaper generic drugs on to the Australian market when they failed to meet Australian standards of safety and efficacy. Thirty-three drugs, according to the Minister's count, have been placed on the market without meeting the high standard of safety and efficacy to which Australians have become accustomed. The chain of events leading up to this situation began over two years ago when statistical inconsistencies in data needed to justify market approval of certain generic drugs was detected. That discovery led to a senior officer of the Department of Health going to South Africa to inspect the Gestalt Pty Ltd laboratory, which was the laboratory responsible for the testing of the drugs in question. The officer said in his report of that on-site inspection: There have been a number of issues raised by evaluators of these submissions which have never been adequately resolved and it was for this reason that I arranged to visit Gestalt Pty Ltd laboratories. Given the stated reason for the on-site visit and given the resulting negative report on this officer's evaluation of the Gestalt testing laboratories, how is it possible that the Department of Health could have subsequently approved 13 drugs for market approval when the submissions for the market approval of those drugs were based on questionable data from that same laboratory, Gestalt laboratories in South Africa? In addition, we now know that at least one drug was approved for marketing prior to the issue of bioequivalency of that drug being resolved. In other words, the basic test of safety was not even done, and the drug was approved as being safe for Australian consumption. I ask the Minister: How many other generic drugs have received similar approvals without the test being done? When will he tell the Australian public? It is a scandal. The Minister took action on this matter only four months ago-after the report on the Gestalt laboratories was leaked to the Press. The Minister did not take action when the matter was with the Department. He had the matter with the Department for 18 months and did nothing. But when it was leaked to the press he thought: `Oh, gee, it is getting a bit hot now; I had better do something'. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that there has been a massive cover-up in the approval of generic drugs under this Government. After being pursued on the issue by me and by professional organisations the Minister has now said that he will have an independent evaluation of the Department's generic drug approval process. But what has happened? Well, we have not heard anything. We have the terms of reference of the investigation, and it is now clear that it will be a secret investigation. Only a full and open inquiry by specialists competent in drug assessment will satisfy the Australian community that generic drugs which have been approved are safe to be used and that the approval process to be adopted in the future will have as its prime goal the safety of the Australian people rather than the cost consideration. We know that the Minister is under pressure; we know that the Medicare program is totally out of control; we know that the cost of that program has gone way beyond any estimates the Government ever put forward in the initial planning stages of Medicare; and we know that he is under enormous pressure from the Australian public to curtail the rapidly increasing cost of health. But I tell the Minister that the way to contain the cost of Medicare is not to allow unsafe drugs to go to the Australian community. The Minister should not sacrifice the normal high safety requirements that this country has come to expect to cut his costs. The way to cut costs is to go to the root of the problem-Medicare. It is time that the Minister stopped giving us this quick fix type of legislation that we have before the House today. It is time he began to address the real problems he has in his health programs. He must initiate Federal action to address the problem of public hospital queues and underutilised private hospital beds. He must eliminate bulk billing for all except pensioners and health care card holders, in order to slow the increase in medical utilisation. Confidence in Australia's drug approval process has been severely damaged. He must restore this confidence with an open, independent investigation of the generic drug approval process, followed immediately by a clear statement of revised procedures for generic drug approval. He must address the problem of unprocessed pharmaceutical scripts. He must end Medicare's monopoly on medical insurance and allow people to leave the Medicare program and provide for their own health insurance. Only when the Government takes the steps I have outlined will we regain in this country the health service which we deserve. We had an excellent health service in this country before Medicare was introduced. We now have a situation in which people cannot get into hospitals, the providers of health care are demoralised, and we have unsafe approval of drugs for use by the Australian community. Fundamental changes must be made. We can no longer delay. We know that the Minister has a philosophical commitment to Medicare, but surely even he can now see that it is not working. The Australian people are not getting the health services that they deserve. How on earth can he justify having 100,000 people waiting for a public hospital bed? How on earth can he justify the fact that so many of those people waiting for a hospital bed are the poor and the pensioners of our community? They are the ones who cannot afford to buy a private hospital bed for their care. Of course, the well-off in this community-the members of the Australian Labor Party, who have good incomes-can have surgery when they need it. They can pay for a hospital bed in a private hospital. It is the pensioners and the underprivileged of our community who have been most seriously disadvantaged by the introduction of Medicare. Previously, they had access to a hospital bed; now they do not. There are 100,000 people in the queue for a hospital bed. I thought that the Labor Party was the Party that was supposed to look after those people in our community. It has looked after none of them. In fact, we are all now worse off. The cost has gone up and the standard of care has dropped. The people providing the care are disillusioned, and the Australian community deserves better. Fundamental changes must be made, and they must be made now. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(12.33) —I welcome the opportunity to address the National Health Amendment Bill because the issues of pharmaceutical benefits and general public health care are of great importance to all Australians. However, I was disturbed by some of the direction taken by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). While he made some valid points, I believe he made absolutely unwarranted attacks and has misconstrued the whole situation of health care within Australia. For instance, the honourable member attacked the Government because of a quoted increase in the use of doctors' services under Medicare. If he had been living in the real world, particularly before the introduction of Medicare, he would be aware that under the previous distorted system, hundreds of thousands of Australian families could not afford to go to the doctor. I had practical experience of this in regard to those people within my electorate who at that stage were trying to get into crowded casualty out- patients' sections in hospitals which certainly, in my home State, were not getting the funding that has since flowed from Medicare. Certainly there has been evidence of abuse of the system by some doctors. But the Government believes that these are in the minority and has taken steps to lessen this abuse. This action has been welcomed by the well-respected majority of the medical profession. The honourable member dwelt on the abuse of the bulk billing system. The Department of Health is fully aware of the potential for abuse and is watching it carefully. But why did the honourable member for Barker concentrate his attack on abuses in an area which benefits a multitude of Australians who may otherwise be denied proper health services-those whose income is greater than the pension, but still not enough to provide health care without the assistance of Medicare? Another area referred to by the honourable member was the attack on drug abuse by this Government. I was very surprised to hear the comments made by him. It is hard to evaluate the success of a public awareness campaign, particularly in the short term. It is hard for the general public to be able to appreciate the efforts made in the absence of highly visible results, but it is up to a government of integrity and foresight to tackle these problems in the public interest. The Commonwealth Department of Health has done this by way of a variety of means. It has promoted an attack on drug abuse in a wide-ranging manner, meeting the need to educate the public on the extent to which legal, readily available drugs, such as alcohol and across-the-counter medicines such as antihistamines, can be abused, particularly in conjunction with each other. Although such a campaign requires extreme patience, as officers involved work without the reward of a quick feedback or easily recognisable response, it is a campaign which must be waged. This Government was the first government to recognise the severity of drug abuse in Australia, and is waging that campaign. The issue of health care conveys not only a need for rational economic judgment, but also serious consideration of the impact of policies on the family unit, which remains the primary basis of our social organisation. This has particular relevance to the Bill that is before the House. The National Health Amendment Bill provides further refinement of a piece of legislation which has been singularly instrumental in enhancing the health care and financial security of families. I refer specifically to the safety net system of pharmaceutical benefits introduced in November last year, which, like so many policies of this Government, reflects an unyielding commitment to reconciling difficult economic decisions-decisions which past governments have not faced up to-with the greatest possible equity in the distribution of available public resources. Honourable members will be aware of the system which has altered the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by providing a safety net for those patients who are chronically ill or who rely greatly on frequent prescriptions. The system is based on a record card kept at the local chemist shop. Once a family has taken out 25 separate prescribed drugs in a year, any further script in that year will be free of charge. The benefits of this scheme are numerous and significant. I believe that it is because of these benefits that pharmacists facing the extra administrative effort required when introducing a new system have persevered. In fact, I would like to record my appreciation of the patience displayed by pharmacists in introducing the new scheme. The cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme to the taxpayer primarily will be kept in check by ensuring that those patients in greatest need of assistance will be protected from higher prescription costs. I refer particularly to chronically ill patients and families-particularly those with young children, because, as many parents can testify, a cold or virus which runs through a family can have considerable repercussions in terms of prescription costs on the family budget. The safety net system has for the first time set a time limit on a family's pharmaceutical costs. Therefore, it offers genuine relief for such costs throughout the year. This also provides for greater simplicity and accuracy of health care, as all prescriptions can be recorded at the chemist shop. However, as I have mentioned, the Government is aware that there have been problems at shop level which could detract from the smooth provision of the services which we desire for the benefit of patients and health providers. This Bill seeks to address by amendment those minor problems which have been conveyed to the Government during the introductory phase of the new PBS arrangements. The Bill addresses some of the administrative problems which literally landed on the counter of the pharmacist during the introductory phase. For instance, I believe that the provisions of clause 5 will be most welcome because this clause voids the requirement for pharmacists and others to retain for 12 months documentation supporting the issue of entitlement cards. I would comment in this context that there are some 10,500 entitlement cards issued at present, covering over 25,000 people. Following the passage of this Bill the documentation will be sent to the Secretary of the Department of Health within one month of issuing the card, significantly easing the pile-up of paper work in the pharmacy. The move is also designed to facilitate the speedier issue of entitlement cards, considerably diminishing any inconvenience to patients. Another change aimed at reducing delays in processing claims is the insertion of a new section 99ab into the National Health Act to authorise the Secretary to the Department of Health to make advance payments to approved pharmacists, approved medical practitioners and approved hospital authorities. Quite a complex formula must be followed to arrive at the relevant price of drugs prescribed, particularly because, while payment is calculated on the price at the time of dispensing the drugs, the Government has followed a policy of making advance payments so as not to disadvantage pharmacists. I felt that it was very negative of the honourable member for Barker to attack the fact that the Government is now enacting amendments to ensure that this credible policy of advance payments can continue on a legal basis. It was determined on the Attorney-General's advice that the formula of advance payment was not legally supported, so clause 11 of the Bill rectifies the situation in providing a legal basis for advance payment by the Department. It is important that the amendment rectifies that situation-a relatively minor situation that cropped up in the process of this Government following a policy which advantaged pharmacists and thereby their patients. Another important change affects patients who have blood specimens taken while they are in-patients of a hospital, but where the blood is not analysed until after they are discharged. Under the current definition of the basic private table, gap benefits are payable only if the full service, that is taking the specimen and the analysis, is performed within the hospital. Clause 4 of the Bill rectifies this anomaly by making the outside analysis after the patient has given the specimen while in hospital eligible for gap benefit. Another clause, clause 6, will be welcome to many people because it inserts a new provision into the principal Act to provide that an approved pharmacist, medical practitioner or hospital authority is entitled to be paid a fee in respect of each pharmaceutical benefits entitlement card and each additional or replacement card issued by the person or authority. This action is typical of actions under this Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who has pursued health policy in co-ordination with and seeking the co-operation of health providers and who has a fine record of co-operative activity with pharmacists. In terms of economic judgment, the safety net system which this Bill seeks to refine represents a sensible arrangement in the context of budgetary constraints and the need for a Labor government to fulfil its traditional commitments to public health care for those most in need. Pensioners with health care cards who receive their PBS scripts free of charge have been unaffected by the changes, which will cut some $58m from previously projected health costs for this financial year. The new system, therefore, reflects three major commitments in public health-the most efficient use of resources, the most equitable use of resources given the need for fiscal restraints-and there is such a need which is recognised by Australians-and the most appropriate use of resources for those who are most in need, those who cannot help themselves. It is significant that the amendments we are now discussing are designed to improve arrangements relating to maximum drug quantities and the Minister will be liaising closely with the appropriate professional bodies. Again, this is typical of the Minister's method of operation. The amendments relate to the need to allow the maximum dose or quantity of a prescribed drug to be increased and still be eligible for entry on the pharmaceutical entitlements card, and the need to allow less than the maximum dose of dangerous or addictive drugs to be prescribed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and yet remain eligible for the entitlements. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Lilley will have leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(12.45) —I would like to take this opportunity to remind my parliamentary colleagues, on both sides of the House-not that there are many of us here-that today, 19 March, is, or at least was, the first day of the Festival of Minerva. It is just possible that the relevance and significance of this occasion has escaped some honourable members, so perhaps a brief explanation is in order. The ancient Romans, who, amongst other things, were obviously advocates of affirmative action, regarded Minerva as one of their three principal deities. She was the goddess of wisdom and good counsel, defender of the home and the state, and the embodiment of purity and reason. Needless to say, we are not required to observe her special festival-and it is probably just as well. Although the ancient Romans apparently had no difficulty in spending five days paying homage to Minerva and the ideals she represented, I suspect we would be hard pressed to spend five minutes in celebration. When one considers the philosophies, policies and performance of our present Federal Government, it is immediately obvious we have little, if any, cause for celebration. Minerva-and, no doubt, the ancient Romans-would be horrified to find that the defence of home and state are not regarded as particularly important; purity is all too often seen as an unnecessary, old fashioned and somewhat humorous concept; and wisdom, good counsel and reason are currently in very short supply. We refer to this as progress, but I believe the ancient Romans may have had another name for it. Quite seriously, we may no longer expect wisdom, reason and good counsel to be the province and responsibility of goddesses, but we should expect those qualities to be displayed by governments. It may be true that wise decisions are often difficult to make, and are not necessarily popular or enthusiastically received by all sections of the community, but if the challenges and problems currently confronting us are to be satisfactorily resolved, we must have a government which recognises the difference between wisdom and political expediency; a government which seeks and offers good counsel throughout all its decision-making and administrative processes; a government which exercises its power and authority without fear or favour, and which legislates on the basis of what is right and proper, fair and just, and morally, socially and economically sound and reasonable. The seventeenth century English poet, Anne Bradstreet, correctly observed: Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge. Those who have used such an implement will know the folly and frustration it causes. A blunt axe does not make it easy to chop cleanly through to the heart of the matter; it bruises and batters and splinters along the way. Our nation and its people are being bruised, battered and splintered by the authoritarian, unjust and ill-conceived policies of a government intent on pursuing the dangerous philosophies of socialism-and by the politics of envy, greed, resentment, suspicion and fear. The Hawke Labor Government has demonstrated beyond any doubt its capability to lead us into our current economic and social mess and muddle, but apparently it is unprepared, unwilling or incapable of leading us out of it again. There is no vision, no guidance, no confidence and no encouragement by way of incentive or the concept of reward for effort, and there is certainly no hope for a secure, stable and prosperous future while Australia remains under the control and influence of these blunt-axe wielding socialists and their union, big business and trendy left wing bosses. Were wisdom and good counsel displayed when the same government that advocated and implemented so-called anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation-and spent millions of taxpayers' dollars in the effort-introduced laws which clearly disadvantage some sections of our community while at the same time benefiting others, laws which display elements of racial prejudice which are intolerable and unjustifiable, and laws which will serve to divide rather than unite the Australian people, one would have thought our Government wanted to help, rather than hinder, the cause of racial equality. The wisdom and good counsel of Martin Luther King is very relevant in regard to this matter. He spoke of his dream: . . . that one day we will recognise the words of Jefferson that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with some inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He did not say these ideals could or would be achieved while governments, for whatever reasons, continue to reinforce rather than redress the real or imagined problems and differences which exist within most, if not all, communities. Laws which ignore the basic precepts of justice and equality for all are divisive and destructive. They achieve nothing but disruption and discontent, from all sides. It is time we recognised the fact that we simply cannot spend the rest of our lives endeavouring to compensate for the actions and mistakes of previous generations. We can only learn from history; we cannot change it. We must legislate for the present and the future-not for the past. Where are wisdom and good counsel, when the Government decides the best method of coping with problems, such as drug abuse and the terrifying consequences of the much-publicised disease known as the acquired immune deficiency syndrome, is to mount expensive campaigns which it euphemistically terms `offensives' but which in fact are only really offensive insofar as they cost millions of dollars and achieve very few results. Why can we not face these problems head on instead of beating about the bush or thumbing through the glossy brochure. Drug abuse will be solved only when those responsible for master-minding and financing this insidious activity are caught and appropriately punished. There is little point in concentrating on the peripheral operatives or pursuing the victims. We need the Mr Bigs. We must adopt the tried and true principle of prevention rather than cure, and we must start looking from the top, rather than the bottom. Similarly, this Government is far too coy in its approach to stopping the spread of AIDS-and it may now be too late to rectify the matter. Our younger generation will benefit little from being forced to participate in lectures which explain homosexual practices and the need to take appropriate protective measures during their sexually active years-which, we are told, can commence as early as pre-teenage. We tell them the consequences of their actions may be disastrous, but that the actions themselves are not wrong. I believe that it is an awesome indictment on our society that little children are known to be sexually active, and that the Government sees as an appropriate and adequate solution ensuring they use condoms to protect themselves from AIDS. What is wrong with a little old fashioned morality? Why do we not tell the classroom lecturers to point out that the one sure protection from aids is to desist from promiscuous or homosexual activity. Surely this is no real deprivation for a 14- or 15-year old. Mr Andrew —Or anybody else. Mr HALVERSON —Indeed, that is so. Surely there is no shame or embarrassment in pointing out to teenagers that there are more pleasures in life than sex, drugs, smoking and alcohol. But those charged with the responsibility of trying to guard the health of young Australians are not the least bit concerned with guarding their morality, dignity or pride. They shy away from such a challenge and are not bothered about the ifs, whens, wheres, and whys-only the hows. Perhaps we still need Minerva, if only to remind us that the once mighty Roman Empire, like other empires before and after it, destroyed itself because of decadence and corruption, selfishness, inequality, unbridled ambition and greed. It is time we realised that good government depends on the ability to stand for what is right, good and correct, and to guide the nation and its people accordingly-an ability which is, unfortunately, singularly lacking in relation to our present government. How are we to achieve a united, responsible, self-disciplined, principled and caring community when our Government is committed to breaking down the moral and social standards and values which are the basis of a stable, well adjusted, dignified and sensibly structured society? This Government has betrayed the trust and confidence of those who elected it. It is a government which prefers the easy option to the proper one . . . a government which is not worthy of the privilege of providing Australia and Australians with the wise and reasonable leadership and good counsel which they expect, deserve, and are most certainly entitled to receive. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(12.56) —I found the advocacy for pagan gods rather diverting but my attention was captured when the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) used the words `bruised, battered and splintered'. I am sure one could be forgiven for believing that he was referring to his own Liberal Party. A few weeks ago a letter was circulated throughout my electorate urging people to join the Liberal Party and inviting them to phone particular numbers for further information. One of the phone numbers that people were invited to ring belonged to a Mr John Tassell who has spent the last few years trying to turn small business people away from the Australian Labor Party and lure them into the camp of the Liberals. Mr Tassell has been silent of late, which is not surprising when we consider the factional disputes which are occurring in the Liberal Party and the disastrous policies being promulgated by the conservatives. It is possible to lump the Opposition together under the title of conservatives, but the delicious air of madness which is currently wafting through the corridors of this House makes it impossible to refer any longer to the Opposition by traditional names such as Liberal or National. In fact, the Opposition is so hopelessly riddled-perforated even-by factionalism that it is easy to identify at least 20 groups the members of which are now pursuing their own separate grubby little grab for power. The headlines in the papers this very morning scream that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) lacks the numbers, according to his colleague. His colleague? That is a reference to the honourable member for Bennelong, and Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). So we have the Bennelong and the Kooyong factions, but it does not end there. Two factions have a definite nautical lilt to their names. We have the Sinkers faction being rivalled by the `anchors McVeigh' faction. The list goes on: the Joh faction, the McGauran-Hicks group, the Hodgman-Goodluck duet, the Everingham group, the Steele Hall group, and the Ian Cameron group. The Opposition is a hopelessly divided rabble. The delicious air of madness which circulates among the Opposition groups has drifted into my Hunter electorate. Last election the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and his deputy, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), spent much time in the Hunter displaying extraordinary loyalty towards their candidate there. Their candidate spent a fortune on his campaign but ran a very poor third, finishing 16,000 votes behind me and 4,000 votes behind the Liberal candidate. However, the National Party candidate learnt from that campaign-he learned a good deal about loyalty and how it should be repaid. Recently he has spoken on local radio and burst into the regional Press eulogising the Premier of Queensland and attaching himself to the Joh drive to Canberra. ``I don't want to be a back bencher in opposition'', he says, ``I want to be a member of the Joh led Government''. I bet those words stoked a warm glow of appreciation in the hearts of the honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Gwydir. But things are looking up for the Leader of the National Party and his deputy. Now that the Joh factor has self-destructed I am sure that the National Party candidate in Hunter will jump out of the `cart of senility driven by the nut from Kingaroy' and probably join forces with them again. However, I am sure that the voters of Hunter will never forget Mr Turner's flirtation with the Queensland Premier, and I am sure the Leader of the National Party and the honourable member for Gwydir will not forget the strength of Mr Turner's loyalty. I have said that the Opposition is hopelessly divided. It is necessary to add that conservative policies are equally hopeless. I have written to small business people in my electorate warning them how horrendous procedures would be for them were the Leader of the Opposition to succeed in introducing a value added type of consumption tax. The costs of compliance imposed on business enterprise by a value added tax are far from trivial and would choke many businesses-particularly small businesses. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that small business people in the Hunter electorate are not waxing lyrical about his consumption tax advocacy. Nor is anyone else in the electorate ecstatic about his policies, as he would have learned from his recent visit there. The Leader of the Opposition is having trouble not only with his wafer-thin policies; he is having trouble also with his candidates in the Hunter. Last election in Hunter the white hope of the Liberal Party was a Dr Ron Dolton, who has been dumped in favour of a candidate who cannot tell the difference between Federal and State government issues. The greatest boo-boo committed by the Liberal Party's new candidate for Hunter is his showing of his total ignorance of the Hunter electorate's most important industry. The Liberal Party candidate in Hunter has called for the total deregulation of coal export controls-a move which would have catastrophic effects on the coal mining industry in every region of New South Wales and some regions in Queensland. The coal mining industry has enough serious problems without them being added to by the Liberal Party candidate's unsympathetic ideas. Mr Dunkley's insane pronouncements, if put into practice, would cause massive job losses in Hunter Valley mines and destroy the prosperity of the Hunter electorate. Miners will not be voting for Mr Dunkley, nor will the small businesses where miners spend their wages. Pensioners in the Hunter electorate are justifiably terrified of conservative flat tax policies which would benefit the rich and penalise the poor. Returned servicemen are disgusted that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to give an assurance that the Department of Veterans' Affairs will not disappear as a separate entity. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, has visited the Hunter electorate spewing spurious nonsense, but he has remained mysteriously silent about the future of the Veterans' Affairs Department. When the Federal Opposition decided last year to abandon the first home owners scheme if it were elected to government, the screams and protests were long and loud. Under the scheme the Federal Government has directed over $1 billion to help more than 230,000 households acquire their first home. As a result of the public outrage at the Opposition's proposal, it has now decided to retain the first home owners scheme should it be returned to government. However, the coalition's new housing policy released last Friday announces the termination of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which makes money available for all public housing including housing commission homes. People on the waiting list for housing commission homes will not be too happy about this decision. Voters in the Hunter electorate are furious about it. The Liberal and National Party runners in the Hunter electorate have had plenty of lead placed in the saddle bags they have to carry. Liberal and National Party policies are disastrous for the Hunter electorate. Policies which seek the removal of all protection for the textile and clothing industries would throw more than 2,000 workers in my electorate on the unemployment scrap heap. When the Leader of the Opposition visited my electorate recently he shed plenty of crocodile tears about high interest rates but he did not visit National Textiles Ltd, Bonds Wear Pty Ltd and other textile and clothing factories to tell the workers that he wanted to take away their jobs. The conservative parties care about profits-they care not for workers and job losses. When company directors vote themselves staggering fee increases, the conservatives say not a word. But listen to them squeal when wage and salary workers are granted an extra $10 per week. They are hypocrites! Consider the gall of those opposite. A carefully orchestrated campaign has been initiated by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) to transfer funds from the New England Highway to the Pacific Highway. The conservatives are trying to kick Hunter Valley businesses, industries and voters in the teeth. They want Federal funds taken from Hunter Valley roads and transferred to roads which run through their electorates on the north coast of New South Wales. They do not care two cents for the people in the Hunter electorate. Councils in my electorate are enraged by the gall of those opposite. The national highway is a vital element of the future prosperity of the Hunter Valley and every council has written to me, saying, `Stop these Liberals and Nationals from stealing our road funds'. I am acting on their behalf, and as far as I am concerned this present Government will not have a bar of such an idea. Coalition members of parliament who visit my Hunter electorate never raise this matter. What they are pursuing is theft by stealth. It is apparent that the policies of the Opposition seriously disadvantage the Hunter Valley and one might well ask why the coalition is seeking to crucify the Hunter Valley's people. In the past two years councils in the Hunter electorate have received record grants. The new bridges at Hexham and Singleton were totally funded by the Federal Government, and so too was the new Wallis Creek bridge at Maitland. This Government has provided the highest level ever of road funding for the Hunter Valley and there have been extremely generous funding grants for community employment program projects, the first home owners scheme, tourist information centres, nursing homes, day care centres, housing and a whole range of expanded community services, including $10m for a new technical and further education college. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(1.06) —I am just a little bemused in following the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) because it is extraordinary to hear during a grievance debate an honourable member opposite grieving about what he perceives as the disunited performance of his opposition. I would have thought that the honourable member for Hunter lacked the ring of confidence when he rose to grieve about the Opposition's performance, and one can only suppose that he has become increasingly nervous following the well publicised reception that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) had in the electorate of Hunter during the last fortnight's break. I raise a matter that really warrants some grieving over; that is, the demise of family farms across this nation. Every primary producer in Australia is conscious of the sort of pressure his business operation, his family and his farm is currently being exposed to. But too many people in the community, too many people listening to this broadcast, are still unaware of the sort of pressure currently being put on family farms. Too many people are unaware that for the last three years 37 per cent of Australia's export income has come from the land; that we are the world's sixth largest farm trading nation; and that 89 per cent of the 170,000 farms in Australia are family enterprises. For the people who run these farms there is no 38-hour week; for these people there is no accounting of their hourly wage and saying: `Why have I not achieved in the hours worked the minimum wage?'. For these people there is only the reality of hard work, about which they do not complain. All they seek is a reasonable trading environment in which to live. These people, who are the backbone of agriculture in Australia and who, as I said, make up 89 per cent of agricultural enterprises in Australia, are leaving the farm across the nation at the rate of seven families each day or 2,500 families each year. Why? Because the cost of maintaining a family farm in Australia is rapidly outstripping any return. These are the people who receive from the Government what is calculated to be a maximum, on average, of $4,500 a year in the form of subsidies that may take the form of research grants, advice given by departmental advisers and of course what is popularly known as the super subsidy, but who, in return, pay something like $9,000 on average for the privilege of farming in this country and living in the protected manufacturing environment that is Australia. These are the people whose interest rates have risen by 151 per cent in the last five years. These are the people whose farm debt has doubled from $3.7 billion to $8.5 billion in that same period, while, I point out to the House, government debt has tripled. I want to quote from a colleague of mine, the shadow Minister of Agriculture in South Australia, Mr Graham Gunn. He has pointed out that these Australian family farmers in fact provide for Australians what is, in world terms, cheap food. Mr Gunn said: A recent survey showed that a shopping basket in Australia was 23 per cent less expensive than the average prices paid in 15 other major cities around the world. Australians spend only 19 per cent of their disposable income on food, compared with 23 per cent on income tax. Every dollar which agriculture generates creates an estimated $3 to $4 in the wider community. Every job created in farming generates two jobs in our towns and cities, having a multiplier effect on our nation. I rise, Mr Deputy Speaker, to say a word or two about Australia's family farms because during the fortnight that the House was in recess, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) took his rural task force into Mr Gunn's electorate, the electorate of Eyre, and what is part of the Federal electorate of Grey. The honourable member for McMillan said that the purpose of the rural task force's visit to the electorate of Eyre to talk to the disadvantaged family farmers in that area was in fact to undertake consultation. That was an honourable enough reason, but it is a motive that I felt compelled to challenge because Australian farmers right now do not need additional consultation; what they are calling for is action from this Government to do something about the rural crisis currently facing every one of them. There has been no shortage of consultation, as you would be well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. Consultation has oozed from the Opposition benches to the Government. Consultation has been the constant plea of Mr McLachlan, the President of the National Farmers Federation-a plea he has made to the point where he was shown to the door of Prime Minister Hawke's office. Consultation is not what is now needed, action is needed instead. What has consultation produced for farmers around Australia? Their reception has been just the same as the reception experienced by members of the Opposition. Whenever the Opposition in this House offers to this Government a viable alternative, a track they might pursue in the interests of every export commodity producer in this nation, what do we face? We face the characteristic scorn and derision that we just heard from the honourable member for Hunter as he referred to what he thought were allegations of disunity and lack of harmony on the Opposition benches. Opposition policies which have not even been announced are the subject of the scorn and derision of members opposite. We heard the honourable member for Hunter talking about consumption and value added taxes as if they were already part of the Opposition policy. He poured scorn and derision on what he perceives the Opposition might be going to do-a perception he has made without any evidence at all. What room has there been for consultation, and what room was there on Eyre Peninsula for consultation with the honourable member for McMillan's rural task force? I can tell the House because one of the gentlemen who was at one of the meetings that the member for McMillan convened said that when they got to the question and answer period the chairman, the honourable member for McMillan, stood up and said: `I am sorry, gentlemen, we are out of time and we have to leave'. So the farmers on Eyre Peninsula at that meeting had had the benefit of the point of view of the honourable member for McMillan, but he had not had the benefit of consultation with those farmers. I was prompted to rise in this grievance debate by the question without notice put by the honourable member for McMillan to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) yesterday. The honourable member for McMillan, as those listening would have heard, asked the Minister for Primary Industry: `What is the market outlook for wool, beef, dairy products, sugar, cotton and horticultural products, and how does it compare with the market outlook for wheat?'. Everyone knows that the current market outlook for wheat and grains is disastrous, and the Minister for Primary Industry left the impression with the House that, thanks to the Government's decision to float the dollar, all was well with these other industries. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is totally fallacious. Sure floating the dollar has helped-that has been freely acknowledged by the Opposition-but floating the dollar has only helped exporters because the dollar has fallen, and the dollar has fallen because the rest of the world has passed judgment on the way this Government is currently managing the economy. It has fallen not because it was floated but because of the judgment passed on our economy by the rest of the world. But is it fair to say that horticultural, dairying and sugar industries are about to be treated advantageously. In the last 50 years the time one has to work in order to acquire a loaf of bread has fallen. One could acquire a dozen eggs by working for 12 minutes in 1986, while one worked for 35 minutes in 1936? For a case of oranges one worked 2 1/2 hours in 1936, and one worked under an hour for that same case in 1986. The people who have borne the brunt of the competitive edge that we need to get into export markets have been the primary producers in Australia and not the employees as alleged by the honourable member for McMillan, and the honourable member has had the audacity to say that all this side cares about is profits. We care, Mr Deputy Speaker, about ensuring that Australia has a competitive edge in export markets, and it is about the lack of that edge we ought to grieve. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(1.16) —I did come into the chamber with a grievance but after listening to the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) I am afraid I must take issue with and grieve about the hyperbole which has emanated from him. There is a problem in the rural sector; I am aware of that. I have in my electorate the highest level of farm debt in Australia, but it is a localised problem and it affects a small group of wheat farmers-a group for whom I have the greatest sympathy. There is only one thing that can help these people in my opinion, and that is special consideration in respect of interest rates. On every occasion that I have put forward special consideration for this group of people it has been rejected. It has been rejected by the National Farmers Federation and by other farm bodies on the ground that assistance must be across the board. Assistance for many people in the rural sector is not needed. Some of the farmers in Esperance have told me that this year has been their best ever in financial terms. They have made more profit this year than ever before, but it is interesting to note that these are all farms without any debt structure at all. So it is absolute nonsense for the honourable member to come in here and carry on as he does unless he is prepared to argue for targeted assistance. I must also, as a member of the task force set up by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), take exception to what the honourable member said. I was not at the meeting that went to air but I have been to several others and I am familiar with the issues. I also had the opportunity to see a video of the meeting I think he was referring to, and I think if the honourable member took the trouble to look at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation coverage of that meeting he would agree that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) was being assailed. In my opinion he acquitted himself very well indeed. I have been at meetings like that amongst some sections of the rural community and they are, to say the least, irrational. I remember once being accosted in a pub at Northampton by farmers demanding that we increase the super bounty, reduce interest rates and legislate to stop banks foreclosing. In the end he said to me: `But most of all, get off our backs'. It is an attitude which seems to prevail in the muddled mentality displayed by those opposite. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to grieve particularly about the lucky country. We may well ask what has happened to the lucky country. I have just returned from overseas and I am convinced that the lucky country still exists. It is to be found between latitudes 10 degrees south and 45 degrees south and longitudes 115 and 155 degrees. In that general area we can find it, intact. When we see the problems overseas we realise that we are in fact a lucky country. What we have in Australia is a loss of confidence, and in some sections a determination to undermine this great country. This is seen nowhere better than in the enormous ill-informed emotion that arises about the so-called current account deficit. A lot of people do not realise that the situation in Australia is in no way analogous to that in the South American countries. The governments of those countries, or their agencies, owe the money. In Australia that is not the case. Sure the overseas debt of the Australian Government is some $10 billion-and it has risen dramatically, although because of adverse terms of trade-but it is still less than government reserves. It might be noted that the State of Queensland has a debt of $11 billion, and no reserves. Overwhelmingly debt in Australia is in the private sector-some $66 billion of our overall $100 billion-odd total debt. Mr Andrew —It's 60 per cent. Mr CAMPBELL —It is slightly over 60 per cent. I suspect that those companies that have borrowed money overseas, run by the Bonds, the Holmes a Courts and the Elliotts of this world, know how to repay it. If they do not know how to repay, they will go broke-not Australia. While I feel a responsibility for Australia's share of that debt, and a somewhat more reluctant responsibility for the Western Australian share of that debt-including the heavy debt that the State Electricity Commission in that State has incurred as a result of some rather shoddy and short-sighted business practices by the previous Government-I have no responsibility for the debts of South Australia, Queensland or any other part of Australia, and I certainly do not bear any responsibility for the debts of Mr Holmes a Court or Mr Bond. I am sure that they would not expect me to. It should also be noted that a lot of this debt is, in fact, capital required for the restructuring of industry in Australia, for the revitalisation of industry-industry that was killed during those tragic years of about 1977 to 1982, when the previous Government crucified industry in this country because it had no policy to contain wages or inflation. It was relying on creating unemployment, a policy which sadly did not work. But we seem to be beset today, and I must admit it affects both parties, by these gurus of the finance world who have raised the debt apparently to the extent that it is some sort of milestone around our neck. However, a milestone it is not. We have governments and oppositions pressing to cut government expenditure. I am all against waste, and wasteful government expenditure, and there are many sorts of expenditure I would certainly like to cut, but cuts in some areas are very counter-productive. I refer particularly to road funding. Arterial and local roads are very important in Australia. They help to bind communities together and there is not better way of generating jobs in the community than through road funding. It will be a grievous shame if funds for this area are cut. I think they should be dramatically increased. I have heard some people, including from my own party, talk about Australia's gold-plated road system. This is nonsense. Roads in Australia are not by any means gold-plated. Road trauma costs Australia $3 billion a year. One of the little bits of misinformation we get is that this is entirely related to alcohol. We blame alcohol for this problem. It is simply a cheap fix. If we blame alcohol we can move responsibility from where it really lies-with the whole of Australia, the people of Australia-and put it on to the group of people who drink. A couple of weeks ago in Kalgoorlie I had the very unfortunate experience of going to the funeral of a young lad, a lad I had known since he could hardly walk. Frankie Fontana was about 20, and he died in a road accident; a kid of enormous potential who was very well liked in the community. He died not because he had been drinking-because he did not-or because he had taken drugs, because he did not; he died because the roads were bad. He was caught in the situation where, while overtaking a vehicle, he ran over a steep shoulder on the road, the car rolled and he was killed. Those sorts of trauma are happening throughout Australia and I believe they are a national disgrace. They happen far less in Canberra, where it can be truly said the roads are gold-plated. The roads in Canberra tend to protect bad and incompetent drivers and a lot more could be done in this country in terms of engineering to protect people in that way. We should also be having in schools very intensive courses in driver training. I believe these are the methods that could be very effective, not this wholesale blaming of road trauma on drink driving. I believe it is nonsense. I would also say that when one has a look overseas and sees the problems that beset other countries, a country such as Australia that can spend so much time discussing the dangers of passive smoking and so much money promoting the dangers of passive smoking really has not much to worry about. I want to turn to some of the people who are doing damage in this community. First, we have the jonahs who talk about enormous problems existing. In every problem they see ruination. They are the Hanrahans of this world. Second, we have the Johns of this world, those who have simplistic cures and offer snake oil and charms to solve our problems. It is interesting that the first group and the second are often the same people. I believe that they do this country enormous harm. What Australia does need though is the realisation that productivity should be rewarded and highly regarded; that it is something for which we should all strive. We should be having a lot less of this mindless union bashing. It is interesting to see that those in the community who call upon unions and workers to accept lower wages do nothing about the manifest lack of management which often exists in society. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am about to run out of time and regret that deeply. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(1.26) —There is a continuing and massive problem existing within our major exporting industry, the coal industry of Australia. In fact, if the major decisions of the 1960s and 1970s to develop our coal resources had not been made even the present level of Australia's balance of trade and current account deficits would by now not be sustainable. It would be a matter of Argentina, here comes Australia. In 1985-86 the value of coal exported was $5,253m or 15.6 per cent of our total exports. One has just to imagine adding that figure to our present trade and current account deficit. It would surely have been a disaster for Australia. Under the Hawke Labor Government the dollar has been allowed a free but questionable float. From a level of US94.29c in February 1984, a year after Labor was elected to government, the dollar went to a low of US59.8c in July 1986. The devaluation has not meant extra revenue for coal exporters. All it has done is allow the international market to squeeze the Australian coal producer's price. That price, in Australian value terms, is still what it was in 1984. In fact there has been a decrease in real value terms. The devaluation has been of little advantage. The same squeeze has been applied to coal's mineral counterpart, iron ore from the Pilbara in Western Australia. Recently a request was made that the overseas price of that ore be reduced by $5 a tonne. Added to this have been the massive government charges such as fringe benefits tax and increased interest rates-directly attributable to the Hawke Labor Government's policy directions and designed to stop the free float of the dollar. That is why earlier I described the free float as questionable. In addition, the Government and its Ministers have had the gall to stand aside and witness the rape of Australia's most important export industry by its unions. Mines at Fernbrook and Grose Valley in New South Wales have been forced to close already this year, because of these extra costs and union pressures. In fact, we have just witnessed the spectacle of this Labor Government buying off the trade union movement to the tune of $85,000 for a European visit complete with perks, as a trade-off for the unions' agreement to a change in the Accord for discounting and the two-tier system. If this is not corruption, what is? Another part of the trade-off has been for Government Ministers to step aside and not criticise the massive $60 per week wage increase of June 1986 by the Coal Industry Tribunal after the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) washed his hands of the matter. What did he wash his hands for-industrial peace? All this at a time when the accord called for indexation and even the discounting of indexation for devaluation consequences. An increase of $60 per week has been given but where has been the industrial peace? I wish to outline now the unions' record of honouring those agreements and promises. There have been 180 disputes in the coal industry between June 1986 and early February 1987-despite the firm undertaking that there would be none. The cost of these disputes, which ended in strike action, has been estimated as 2.6m tonnes of production or approximately $130m in export earnings. That is what I mean by referring to the industrial rape of this country's economy. All of this is left unchallenged by the Government. One has to ask, is this just pure bloody-mindedness, economic vandalism or, in fact, a long range plan for the nationalisation of the coal industry. The Miners Union and its present day Australian counterpart, the Colliery Employees' Union, have never been able to come to grips with the conditions of the twentieth century. The union officials are mediaeval in their philosophy, believing that coal production is only a domestic industry, and refusing to come to terms with its export potential and the challenges for greater production required to trade into overseas markets. In fact, one of the leaders of the CEU once said, `We will never trade dollars for productivity'. If ever someone had his head in the sand, it would certainly be that person who suggested that industry dollars would not be traded for productivity. I wish to give an example of the push to nationalisation. Recently the Queensland branch of the union was pressed to bring its members into line with those of New South Wales and reduce weekly hours from 48 to 42. Allegedly this move was to preserve jobs for members, but its result would have been to reduce productivity and, incidentally, viability, as unit costs would necessarily have been increased. The Combined Coal Miners Union's national liaison committee recommended the enforcement of a maximum 42 hour week and, in the same breath, reaffirmed its position of calling for immediate national stoppages should retrenchments and mine closures become imminent as a result. What better example could there be of voodoo economics than the kind practised by those officials in their recommendations? But let there be no mistake. The decisions were made so as to force `export control', preferably transferring decisions on marketing from the coal producers themselves to a national coal authority. Such an authority would give the Miners Federation control over production, marketing, pricing and investment decisions-the ultimate in the nationalisation of the coal industry. In Queensland, straw polls were taken regarding having limited shifts in order to reduce work to a 42 hour week. I am advised that the declared results were inconsistent with the `hands up' vote taken, but the QCE officials took the decision to strike for 48 hours, again breaking the June 1986 agreement. Members of the union petitioned to have a proper poll taken as the original vote was of only one-third of members. The petition was denied and the strike proceeded. The rank and file of the union was ignored, although 80 per cent of the members petitioned that a revote be taken. It is interesting that exemptions from the 42 hours rule were extended to mine deputies and examiners. One might ask why. It just so happens that union executive salaries are directly linked to these mining industry classifications. The executive was prepared to protect its personal salaries and conditions, while letting the rank and file make the sacrifices. So much for the principles sought and the double standards that prevailed. The coal industry is made up of the old and the new-Queensland and New South Wales, open cut and underground, but the union equation is, or was until the dispute I just mentioned occurred, consistent-Queensland union members, though producing the bulk of export tonnages, being dictated to by the greater number of members in New South Wales. The coal industry works from a private enterprise philosophy on investment, development, production and marketing. Buyers require certain grades of coking or steaming coal and various blends at times require a multitude of sellers. The industry is, particularly in regard to open cut mining one of the most efficient producers in the world and capable of greater productivity. As government charges and controls have intruded, the industry has had to become more cost efficient under the former, and more cautious under the latter. The real economic, government-imposed burdens that the industry has to deal with include coal export duties estimated at $60m for 1986-87, a fringe benefit tax that is estimated by the industry, particularly the iron ore miners, to cost another $2 per hour per person, a devalued dollar that increases the overseas borrowing of capital as well as the interest thereon and outdated work practices. The industry could not cope with restraints imposed by a national coal authority, or the re-imposition of export controls. Those valuable export dollars, and the efficiency of the coal industry, would be sacrificed to the whims of union executives. The Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Resources and Energy. (Senator Gareth Evans), the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations have an obligation to veto categorically the suggestion that there be a national coal authority, and to make the union executive live up to its agreement and promises. It is important that coal industry leaders know where they stand now so they can cope with the future. They cannot make decisions not knowing whether they will have Government support in making those decisions. The pious platitudes of the Government, the Minister and the unions do nothing to encourage the industry in its decision-making. The coal industry has for two decades had to face criticism concerning multinational ownership, the repatriation of capital borrowings and the export of profit. Much of this has come from the unions themselves and the left wing of the Labor Party. However, coal development has made the risk worth while and, although some of the investment increases our foreign debt, what Australians must realise is that the problem of foreign indebtedness is right now three times the problem that it was when the Hawke Labor Government came to power in 1983. I repeat, its size is three times greater now and the Government has made a major contribution to the problem by increasing its own proportion of the foreign debt eightfold within the same period. So the problem did not arise two decades ago. I say quite categorically, as did the Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, Dr Barry Ritchie, as reported in Tuesday's Sydney Morning Herald, that the coal industry, born again and made efficient those decades ago, contributes over $5,200m to redressing that foreign debt. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(1.36) —I wish today to say certain things about the Office of Multicultural Affairs recently established by the Government. It is a very important body in relation to the implementation of the Government's policy of multiculturalism. I do so partly because of a somewhat mischievous misreporting creation in the mind of a particular journalist following some comments that I had to make about the Office which appeared in a Greek newspaper. I just want to make it perfectly clear that I have supported the Office of Multicultural Affairs from the beginning, continue to support it and believe that it is an important initiative in the implementation of our multicultural program in Australia. Naturally, with a new organisation of this kind it is important that the goals and objectives as set out by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) should be achieved. I will say more about that in a moment but I want to make it perfectly clear that the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Committee, including myself as Chairman, has always supported this proposal from its very inception and will continue to support the Office and its director and staff in trying to implement their important goals for multiculturalism. I want to say how pleased I am at the appointment of Dr Peter Shergold to head up the office as director, also the appointment of Ms Vasiliki Nihas and Mr Peter Vaughn as assistant directors in that important task. I would call on the Government to provide the Office as quickly as possible with the necessary resources including staffing so that it can get on with the important tasks before it. There is no question that those tasks are important. Let me refer to some of them. Perhaps the most important will be the co-ordination of the programs of the various government departments. That issue arose last year when there seemed to be some breakdown in at least the co-ordination between departments concerning ethnic and multicultural programs. The Prime Minister has taken the Office under his responsibility precisely to ensure that in fact programs which affect our multicultural philosophy and ethnic communities will be vetted and looked at by the Office of Multicultural Affairs. I hope that the various programs of departments such as Education, Community Services and Communications, as well as of course programs originating in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, which impact on ethnic communities, will also go through the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Perhaps the most important challenge facing the new Office is that of ensuring the implementation of the Government's access and equity program. This program has been outlined in detail in the past. It is one which tries to ensure that there is equal access for ethnic communities to the services available in the various departments. It is directed especially to people who cannot read English because it is important that such access should continue. Of equal importance is the question of ensuring that in government departments and various instrumentalities people of non-Anglo Saxon background should be discriminated against; that indeed they should be given the opportunity to gain departmental positions in all of the Government services. Of course, it is the intention of the Government to try to ensure that this will also take place in other sections of the community, including the private sector. I hope that there will be an upgrading of the access and equity program, that it will be allotted sufficient resources to ensure that it is being implemented in the public sector and that more will be done to implement it in the community as a whole. The other matter that is of great importance is the need to ensure that resources will be available to the various ethnic communities so that there will be a continuation of ethno-specific programs such as grant-in-aid. That program has been one of the cheapest and most effective welfare programs in this country. It is one that needs to be expanded at this time so that the ethnic communities that have such programs will be able to continue them, and the newer communities will be able to obtain them. I support the idea of providing extra resources for programs such as grant-in-aid but also want to say that if the Government intends to move towards mainstreaming in certain areas, such as social security and the provision of welfare programs through social security, it is very important that those services be provided by people who are bilingual, who are able to assist those in the ethnic communities, especially the older citizens who do not understand the language and, of course, the new arrivals. In conclusion, because my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) also wants to participate in the grievance debate, I want again to support strongly the work of the new Office. I call for it to be made a substantive body, one which will have supplied to it resources with which to continue and strengthen the process of implementing the important philosophy of multiculturalism which has been outlined by the Prime Minister. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(1.45) —It has suddenly dawned on the professional party machine men who run the major political parties in this country that declarations of commitment to the family are election winners. Subsequently, each party will come before the electorate sometime in the next 12 months with family policy packages and family oriented election slogans. I can hear the people around Australia, especially the mothers, saying: `Hear, Hear! It's about time.' The task ahead of the Parliament will be to turn the slogans and declarations into prudent and comprehensive policies. I believe it will be the responsibility of the Parliament to transcend party politics on this issue. Our task as parliamentarians will be to consider the tax and welfare options on the basis of the community good and the rights of children rather than on the basis of electoral advantage, party allegiance or factional pressures. Many years ago Australia affirmed as a nation the declaration of the rights of the child. As a result we are beholden to a moral obligation to uphold the following principles: Principle 2 The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration. . . . . Principle 6 The child, for the full and harmonious development of his personality, needs love and understanding. He shall, wherever possible, grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents, and, in any case, in an atmosphere of affection and of moral and material security; a child of tender years shall not, save in exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother. Society and the public authorities shall have the duty to extend particular care to children without family and to those without adequate means of support. Payment of State and other assistance towards the maintenance of children of large families is desirable. Unfortunately we stand as a nation of hypocrites. More and more of our children are being denied the opportunity to be raised in a loving and balanced relationship with a mother and a father. More and more are living in poverty and disadvantage as a result of the explosion of single parent families. More and more of our children are deprived of any father at all. Our laws make divorce all too easy, our social security system robs marriage of its status by rewarding divorce or de facto alternatives, our tax system punishes any couple which chooses to provide their children with the full time care of one parent, and our community tolerates the developmental perversion of our children which results from the increasing exposure to pornography, violence and drugs. Last year a task force set up by President Reagan grasped the nettle on this issue by declaring: Intact families are good. Families who choose to have children are making a desirable decision. Mothers and fathers who then decide to spend a good deal of time raising those children themselves rather than leaving it to others are demonstrably doing a good thing for their children. Public policy and the culture in general must support and reaffirm these decisions-not undermine and be hostile to them or send a message that we are neutral. One of the things we will have to do if we are to be serious about the family in this regard is undertake a hard-headed review of welfare-something that is long overdue. Not all compassion is effective. Some acts of compassion are counterproductive. Much of our welfare in fact works against the family. It is soft-headed. Consider the conclusion of one review of United States welfare in the 1960s and 1970s: A government's social policy helps set the rules of the game-the stakes, the risks, the payoffs, the tradeoffs, and the strategies for making a living, raising a family, having fun, defining what `winning' and `success' mean. The more vulnerable a population and the fewer its independent resources, the more decisive is the effect of the rules imposed from above. The most compelling explanation for the marked shift in the fortunes of the poor is that they continued to respond, as they always had, to the world as they found it, but that we-meaning the not-poor and un-disadvantaged-had changed the rules of their world. Not of our world, just of theirs. The first effect of the new rules was to make it profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that were destructive in the long term. Their second effect was to mask these long-term losses-to subsidise irretrievable mistakes. We tried to provide more for the poor and produced more poor instead. We tried to remove the barriers to escape from poverty, and inadvertently built a trap. Last year I issued to my colleagues and me this challenge, as recorded in Hansard: Will we acknowledge that there is an optimal family structure which should be promoted by tackling the social, economic and political pressures which currently subvert it? Do we have the intellectual and moral capacity to discern appropriate policy mixes which will create an acceptable balance between individual aspirations and marital and family need and obligation? For example, will we continue to ignore the fact that there is a socially preferable mix of home and parental duties, occasional child care and casual employment for a woman in the first years of her responsibility as a mother, and are we incapable of reviewing policies and employment practices to support such a mix? Do we have the courage to speak to an increasingly hedonistic, nihilistic community about self-sacrifice and the forgoing of personal options, especially in the interests of children? Are we willing to speak the truth about individuals who shirk parental obligation, tear up marital commitments, abuse their spouses? Or will we shirk our responsibility for fear that our own lives betray the values we need to promote, and hide beside some vacuous principle of neutrality? Are we to become mere problem solvers, technocrats who believe in nothing and affirm everything so as not to offend anyone. That challenge still stands, but it must be supplemented by the following one: Whether the packages our party advisers put together for the elections favour tax or welfare reforms will not matter. What will matter is whether we can ignore our minders-organisational and ideological-and work together to stop the harm current policies, by commission and omission, are doing to families. Whether we can create a pro-family cultural and political environment for this nation, whether we will put children before opinion polls and party and whether we will act as statesmen rather than politicians are the important questions. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(1.54) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the accident at the Lucas Heights Australian Atomic Energy Commission Research Establishment last night will cause increasing concern for immediate residents and all responsible and concerned Australians. The public could be forgiven for thinking that Australia has only one establishment which contains large amounts of radioactive substances. However, this is not the case. There are at least three other establishments which contain radioactive substances of some note. I refer to the irradiation plants-one in Sydney, at Wetherill Park; one in Melbourne, at Dandenong; and one at Botany in New South Wales. These irradiation plants, operated by the Steritech company, have been in the news of late concerning the introduction of food irradia- tion into Australia. It is to these plants and their radioactive source material that I wish to refer. The irradiation plant has a massive concrete bunker with walls six feet thick. This is necessary to contain the vast amounts of gamma rays being emitted by the radioactive cobalt 60. An accident in any of these plants could be just as dangerous as the recent accident at Lucas Heights, but the most alarming thing is that in the event of an accident involving this radioactive cobalt 60 we have to call in the Mounties. Yes, in the event of an accident we have to rely on the Canadians. The company's procedure in the event of an accident says: For emergency service, contact Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Radiochemical Company Ottawa, Canada. Cable: Nimota Telephone (613) 592-2790 Telex 053-4162. Let me read just part of the warning sign posted in these plants here in Australia: Emergency Conditions If radiation monitor alarm signals (loud klaxon) or a source movement bell sounds take the following action: (A) Personnel in maze or irradiation room. Pull safety cable on wall and leave facility immediately. Close maze door behind you. (B) Personnel in the control area. Push the red emergency button on the control console panel. For emergency service, it says to contact Canada. It goes on to give the details of the telephone and telex numbers to be used in the event of an accident. Here in Australia we have to call in the Mounties. We had better hope that they can get a seat on a jumbo out of Canada, and of course we need to hope that they do not have any other emergencies in Canada or elsewhere. In case there are some who do not understand the potential radiation hazards contained in these concrete chambers in irradiation plants, the gamma rays inside these concrete chambers total the equivalent of in excess of two million chest X-rays. I will come back in more detail to the cobalt 60 source. There have been a number of accidents at these irradiation plants. In two accidents here in Australia-one in the Botany plant of Johnson and Johnson Australia Pty Ltd and one in the Steritech plant at Dandenong, Melbourne-they had to call in the Mounties. The Canadians had to be brought in. Australia just does not have the qualified technicians to cope with an emergency in these types of irradiation plants in Australia. Deaths have occurred in accidents in irradiation plants. Ten accidents are recorded. In Italy in May 1975, an operator died after 12 days. In Oslo in September 1982, an operator died after 13 days. It is very strange that in the figures and details recently provided on these accidents there is no mention of the accidents in Australia. In an irradiation plant there is radioactive cobalt 60 totalling over one million curies-as I said before, equivalent to more than two million chest X-rays. If the cobalt 60 rods were to be taken from the concrete chamber it would cause massive danger to the public. Just one rod contains 4,000 curies. Just one minute's exposure to one rod would provide a lethal dose of radiation. One rod of 4,000 curies will emit gamma rays over a distance of 100 metres or more in all directions. In the event that one cobalt 60 rod exited from that concrete chamber there would be potentially a lethal dose of gamma rays over 100 metres in all directions until the Canadians can be contacted and brought out in the first available jumbo. The Steritech irradiation plant in Dandenong had an accident causing a five-day shutdown and they had to call in the Canadians. The same company recently had an inspection of sorts conducted by the Victorian Government and more than 15 problems were detected-problems which were minor or serious, depending on who one asks. The expert group did not ask about any accidents, nor was it told that there had been accidents. The expert group did not ask for the maintenance log books, nor was it shown them. Had it inspected the maintenance log books it would have found that three, four or five plant stoppages per shift had occurred. To give a comparison of the lethal dose of radiation from cobalt 60 one needs to look at the accident in Mexico in 1984. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with Standing Order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Willis-Prime Minister) —I regret to inform the House that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is still unwell. The Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) will respond to any questions relating to Mr Brown's portfolio. Mr HOWARD —My question without notice is to the Prime Minister and I refer him to his comments at the time of the appointment of the Minister for Science as the Minister responsible for prices. He said: Barry will be the prices Minister charged with the oversight of measures to renew the fight for the lowest possible prices and ensure a fair go for Australian consumers. Will the Prime Minister allow the Minister to answer questions addressed to him on prices? Mr HAWKE —Things are bad on the other side of the House, are they not? Oh well, I suppose the dying days of the honourable member's leadership will be remembered for that penetrating question. The arrangements between the Treasurer and the Minister assisting him in this are entirely appropriate and satisfactory to me. They are entirely consistent with my statement to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. Mr MARTIN —My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the House of the prospects for the Australian economy in the light of recent indicators released by the Australian Statistician? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question. He will recognise that the main task of economic management at present is to reduce the current account deficit and thus slow down the rate at which our net external indebtedness increases. As the House will appreciate, the two essential elements of that strategy are: First, a slower growth in domestic demand; and, secondly, the consequent diversion of resources to exports and efficient import replacement industries. I am very pleased to say that the latest statistics show clearly that these policy objectives are being achieved. Importantly, they are being achieved in a way which has preserved employment growth and without a blow-out in the unemployment rate. The honourable member will be pleased to know that, despite a further fall in our terms of trade, the current account deficit has improved. Most significantly, export volumes have increased by 15 per cent during 1986, including specifically a 25 per cent increase in manufactured exports. On the other hand, imports of consumer goods which do not add to productive capacity have now fallen for five consecutive quarters. I also add for the honourable member that today's national account figures show that growth is being restored. He will be pleased to know that non-farm product grew by 0.9 per cent in the December quarter and that was underpinned by a very substantial contribution-in fact, 1.9 percentage points-from the external sector. Most pleasingly and encouragingly in these difficult economic times, employment increased by 1.9 per cent in the year to February, allowing the unemployment rate to eke back to 8.2 per cent. In February 20,000 new jobs were created, which means that virtually three-quarters of a million new jobs have been created since April 1983. All the indications are that over 75 per cent of those jobs were created in the private sector. Mr Goodluck —We have not seen many in Tasmania. Mr HAWKE —I know that we hear these moans from the Opposition benches, but honourable members will recall that, when the statistics were gloomy and the Government was putting in place the policies to respond to those external factors, the Leader of the Opposition said: `The times will suit me'. Not only the current Leader of the Opposition but also the pretender and all those on the other side do not take pleasure from the fact that the economic situation of this country is responding positively to the measures that we have put in place. I conclude by saying to the honourable member that, while those on the other side continue their squalid squabble about who is the Messiah of conservative politics in this country, this Government will go on with the tough, solid, constructive task of creating a sound and resilient economy in this country to aid recovery from the external pressures that unfortunately have been placed upon us. This Government gets on with the job of governing; we leave squalid politics to the Opposition. Mr LLOYD —My question is to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. If the Independent Air Fares Committee approves increases in the price of airline tickets beyond the Government's 6 per cent limit, as announced by the Prime Minister- last year the increase was over 8 per cent-what will the Government do? Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —I do not mind being the cause of some mirth on the other side; I am just doing something humanitarian to bring a little cheer. The Prime Minister made it quite clear that he was talking about Commonwealth excises. This question is only designed to try to make a point about the division of responsibility in the House. I do not understand why honourable members opposite are taking this view. Their Ministers never allowed Ministers who were assisting to answer for them. Ms McHUGH —Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the House of the results of the consideration of the question of human rights in Cyprus at the recent session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? How did Australia vote and what were its reasons for that vote? Does this vote indicate any shift from the Government's clearly stated policy on the Cyprus question? Mr HAYDEN —At the forty-third session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights a motion was presented relating to Cyprus. The Australian Government abstained from voting on that motion. There were 25 votes in favour, 15 abstentions and three against. I am advised that all western European countries abstained, including the United Kingdom, which is a guarantor power under the Zurich Agreement which established the Republic of Cyprus. All we were concerned about was the revival of consideration of Cyprus in the Commission on Human Rights nine years after it was last considered by that Commission. Our worry was that this would have had the effect of undermining the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations towards a settlement of the Cyprus issue. I might also say that the text of the resolution was not appropriate for the Commission on Human Rights. It was much more appropriate for the General Assembly of the United Nations or the Security Council. In casting our abstention vote, the Australian delegation noted our hope for a peaceful settlement of the Cyprus issue, providing for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-aligned status of Cyprus; our full support for the good offices role of the Secretary-General; and our belief that the Commission on Human Rights was not an appropriate forum for discussion of the Cyprus issue. It properly belongs, as I said, at the moment in the Security Council and with the Secretary-General. We also noted our concern that the Committee on Missing Persons had so far failed to make any real progress and our hope that the parties to the Cyprus dispute would co-operate to facilitate its work. There should be no doubt about the Government's position in respect of Cyprus; that has been made clear successively over the years at the United Nations when the issue has come forward. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices to the fact that the price of renting an average three-bedroom unfurnished house in Sydney is now $267 a week, an increase of over 33 per cent in the past year. What does the Minister intend to do about this outrageous situation? Mr KEATING —I answered that question yesterday. Mr Donald Cameron —A point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Will the Treasurer resume his seat? Does the honourable member for Moreton have a point of order? Mr Donald Cameron —Yes. He did not try to take off Bill Hayden, but he keeps jumping on Barry Jones. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. The Treasurer is quite in order. Mr KEATING —I have nothing to add to what I said to the same question yesterday. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is it true that Australia now receives over one million inquiries from prospective immigrants each year? If so, what percentage of applicants is it possible for our nation to accept? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. It is true, as everyone knows and as not only our former Minister, Chris Hurford, but also other former Ministers such as the honourable member for Goldstein have told the Parliament from time to time, that the number of applications that we get from people who want permanent residence in Australia far outweighs the capacity of this country to take them. It is true that now well over one million applications are received in various parts of the world each year from people who would like to make Australia their home. I think most of the applications come through the office of the honourable member for Lowe. I think the Parliament can be commended on the way in which it has reached decisions that have allowed very general support for the way in which we have now built our migration program. It has a very great deal of support from both sides of the Parliament, which avoids any of the encouragement which may be given to minority voices in this community who can from time to time be so critical of the way in which the government of the day conducts its migration program. There has been in the last year or two a slight increase in the number of people who have been given visas to live in this country, and that may be the case again in 1986-87. There will be no dramatic rise. Of course, it will be based on the selection system, which in no way discriminates against anyone in the world making an application to come here, but it will be done on the basis of the best interests of Australia being served first and foremost. The basis of family reunion and those classifications of employee nominees, skilled labour and independent and concessional visas, which are now the mainstay of our migration program, will remain in place, especially for 1986-87. As I say, we will see a small increase. However, the question asked by the honourable member for Lowe poses certain problems for Australia in that some people believe that we are discriminating against those who are not able to receive entry into this country, but let me assure those listening outside that, as far as this Government and this Parliament are concerned, we will continue to give visas to people on their entry to Australia on a non-discriminatory basis. Mr PORTER —Following the release of confidential Medicare information on doctors' incomes to the Sydney Morning Herald in 1985, did the Minister for Health subsequently claim in a letter to the national co-secretary of the Australian Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons in February 1986 that, with the assistance of computer security devices, access to confidential Medicare data was strictly controlled and limited to only 20 officers? Does the Minister still maintain that that is actually the case? Dr BLEWETT —In response to the honourable member's question, let me say that I am totally convinced of the security and the limitations to officers of information from the Medicare computer system. As far as can be determined, in the particular case mentioned the leakage appears, on the evidence that we have, more likely to have come from the Department of Health than the Health Insurance Commission, given the form that was used by the Sydney Morning Herald. So there is no evidence whatsoever that that material came directly from the HIC computer system. As honourable members will remember, at that period the HIC was required to report material to the Department which was responsible for fraud and overservicing provisions. Indeed, one of the reasons that at a later stage we-I think rightly-put all of that responsibility with the HIC was that there was no longer this need for the transfer of data from the HIC to the Department. So it was a further effort to ensure the security of the system. Mr LEO McLEAY —Is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment aware of recent criticism by the Waste Watch Committee regarding artistic grants made by the Australia Council? Can the Minister please explain the application of the Government's policy with regard to artistic funding? Mr COHEN —This House should have been aware over the last 13 or 14 years that decisions on arts grants are made not by the Minister but by the Australia Council and its boards. The Opposition ought to make very clear whether it wants that to remain the case. Does it want to have ministerial control over arts funding or does it wish it to remain at arm's length? Most of the criticism, however, has been aimed particularly at the Community Arts Board. During the last four years the art in working life program has consumed less than 2 per cent of the funding available to the Australia Council-about $2.8m. We do not hear any criticism of the arts that the mates of Opposition members see-the opera, the ballet and the major theatre companies. The opera receives in one year more than the Community Arts Board has received in some four years. By its nature, community arts tends to be innovative, experimental and indigenous. It is one of the most successful initiatives that we have in the arts program. Let me mention a couple of programs: $9,000 to the Workers Cultural Action Committee towards artists' fees for a trade union banner; $10,000 to the Victorian Trades Hall Council towards the costs of a crafts residency in wood, plus $3,000 towards fees for a Greek composer in the work place. Do honourable members opposite think they are terrible? Mr Cobb —Outrageous. Mr COHEN —They were granted under the Fraser Government. Artists should be judged by their peers. Is the Opposition now saying that this principle should be abandoned? Are we to have grants determined by the likes of Sir Joh? Perhaps his artistic judgment should be the benchmark for future grants in the arts area. Is every new, experimental and innovative artistic endeavour to be subject to public ridicule, or are we to allow artistic and cultural freedom? This is not Nazi Germany. It is not the Soviet Union and it is not South Africa. I might remind people that innovative artists in their time have always been attacked and ridiculed. I refer to the impressionists a century ago-the Manets, the Monets, the Renoirs, the Toulouse-Lautrecs and more recently the Picassos and the Salvador Dalis. In our own country Sir William Dobell was told in 1943 that he was a caricaturist. Today, history will show that he is one of our greatest ever artists. What we are seeing at the moment is the absolute epitome of philistinism. Australian art, through its writers, painters, dancers, musicians, actors and directors, has placed Australia in the forefront of the cultural scene in this world. What better example of this than the film industry? What other industry has done more to bring tourists to this country than our film industry? The depressing part about this whole thing is that the head of the Waste Watch Committee does not believe a word of it. He is not a philistine. What he is doing is just playing cheap politics in an area of which we ought to be proud, which we ought to stay out of and allow artistic and cultural freedom to flourish. Mr PORTER —I direct my question to the Minister for Health. I refer the Minister to his previous response in which he claimed that he was totally convinced of security. I ask the Minister how he reconciles that with the memo from John Loy, Senior Private Secretary to the Special Minister of State, addressed to the Senior Private Secretary of the Minister for Health, dated 11 November 1986, which states: In its earlier investigations the Australian Federal Police . . . said they had identified 1976 persons throughout Australia who had access to the information published in the Herald, notwithstanding the fact that only a small number possessed computer access codes. How can the Government's claim in relation to security of confidential information stored under the ID card proposal be believed? Dr BLEWETT —In the answer I gave to the earlier question I indicated part of the problem at that time, that not only was data in relation to the Medicare system stored in Medicare computers but also, because of the fraud and over- servicing requirements, this material had to be forwarded to officers within the fraud and overservicing areas of the Department of Health. It may well be that the total number that has been suggested relates to both of those areas. One of the reasons for the action that we took in placing all fraud and overservicing material within the Health Insurance Commission was to reduce the spread of particular pieces of information. This particular piece of information which had been forwarded from the HIC to the Department in relation to the general fraud and overservicing activity was, of course, available to a number of officers in the Department. But I am perfectly happy to take on board the precise issue and try to give the honourable member a more detailed response of events that are now over a year old. Mr HAND —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and it concerns the issue of the Government's $250 tertiary charge. I draw the Minister's attention to a report in today's Daily Telegraph which states: The Government is considering increasing the charge to $500 per year. I therefore ask the Minister to ease the concerns of present students and those planning to enter tertiary institutions in the future. Will the Minister state that the Government does not intend to double the current tertiary charge? Mr DAWKINS —Of course, the honourable member would not expect me to answer precisely what items are before the Expenditure Review Committee in the current expenditure review process. However, I can assure him and the House that here, as in all other areas, the Government will take into account the burden of fiscal constraint which is already being carried by various groups within the community. Of course, I am aware that there has been some criticism of the $250 administrative charge. There has also been some attempt to boycott the payment of those charges in some institutions. I want to point out that this is a very modest contribution towards the average $8,000 cost of providing places for tertiary students in Australia. Those students who have places must recognise that they are amongst the most privileged people in Australia because they have the opportunity of an almost free education which gives them a better chance of getting into the work force and remaining there. It is a very small contribution in terms of the total cost and, indeed, is less than 25 per cent of the administrative costs of handling those enrolments within institutions. Those who are seeking to boycott the charge should recognise that not only are they putting at risk their places within those institutions but also they are depriving their own institutions of the necessary resources to carry out their functions. I should also point out that 130,000 students are totally relieved of the requirement to pay the fee as a result of the arrangements that we have made, particularly in relation to people in receipt of Austudy grants. Therefore, it is also important to recognise that this has not just been a budgetary exercise. As a result of imposing this very modest charge, we have arranged for an immediate addition of 1,000 tertiary education places. This number will rise over 3 years to 3,000 additional places, bringing to 48,000 the number of additional places created by this Government. It is worth contrasting our policy with that which we understand to be the policy of at least part of the Opposition. It will freeze places at the existing level and charge the full cost for any additional places. That means that for those people who want to undertake a course in medicine the cost will be some $112,000 at current prices. The cost will be $66,000 for an engineering course or $31,000 for law. Of course, those charges will be imposed regardless of the economic circumstances of those students or their families. As well, we will see a mishmash of private universities cropping up all over the country. We have come by a document revealing the Joh party's education policy which, of course, is full fees for everybody. This will allow that party to set up a university of its own. Some of the schools in that university are anticipated to be the Joh Bjelke-Petersen school of speech therapy, the Flo Bjelke-Petersen school of creation science, the John Bjelke-Petersen school of family studies and the Russ Hinze school of nutritional science. The education policies that we are pursuing are the education policies appropriate for Australia's circumstances and the ones which will equip Australia with the best chances of confronting current economic circumstances. We will not be pursuing some ideological frolic which seems to have possessed the Opposition, which is not only bereft of any logic in terms of providing for Australia but is also a patently and blatantly unfair policy. Mr BRAITHWAITE —My question is to the Minister for Trade. I would like to congratulate him on his recent marriage but I remind him that the honeymoon is now over. I refer the Minister to the Australian Council of Trade Unions study tour to Sweden and Western Europe last year which he sponsored at a cost of $85,000 to the Australian taxpayer. Did the Secretary of the ACTU, Mr Bill Kelty, overstate his Swedish hotel bill by $200 and also overstate other hotel bills? Did the Minister's Department pay Mr Kelty's accommodation costs and $1,471 in travelling allowances despite two undertakings that the ACTU would meet his expenses? Did the Minister's Department fail to charge the ACTU the full cost of air travel in Europe for four trade unionists, as agreed? Were any members of the tour paid travel allowances for the time they were absent from the tour or to which they were not entitled? Mr DAWKINS —The honourable member for Dawson seems to have got his question in just in time before he steps down from the almost anonymous position of Opposition spokesman on trade. I think his very brief period in that position has been characterised by a total absence of interest in the grave issues confronting Australia in the trade area. It is entirely typical that he should be scurrying around in the minutiae of this matter rather than being interested in addressing not only the broad issues that are facing Australia but also the primary purpose of this mission. This mission was jointly sponsored by the Trade Development Council-a creature created by his own Party many years ago-which sponsors many missions overseas, many of which are comprised entirely of people from the business community, which is quite appropriate in my view. However, it has been the practice of my predecessor and me to ensure that, on appropriate missions, we have proper trade union representation. In this case it should have been an entirely trade union delegation because this mission was all about ensuring that, within the Australian work force, there was a proper appreciation of the needs of industry reconstruction in this country-a reconstruction made necessary because of the vandalism which the collection of parties opposite wrought upon Australia during their nearly 30 years in office. It was not only the inappropriateness of their early industry policies where they decided to protect artificially Australian industry and prevent it from being exposed to international competition but, more seriously, in the dying days of that squalid Government, to have an overvalued exchange rate as their only anti-inflationary weapon which brought about the near devastation of Australian industry. My colleague Senator Button most particularly and others of us have been trying to create the circumstances in which Australian industry can fight back. Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The question was directed to some very specific matters. The answer is not relevant in any way, even given the flexible interpretation of the word `relevant' in this House. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is answering the question. He is quite in order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr DAWKINS —We have been keen to ensure that, at the highest level of the trade union movement, there is a proper appreciation of the requirements. I might say that never, I suspect in the history of Australia, has there been a better and more conscientious approach to this matter by the trade union movement. This mission was proposed, quite properly, under the aegis of the Trade Development Council. Anyone would think this was a secret. On 17 June I issued a Press statement that this mission was going and that it would be jointly funded, partly by the Government, through the TDC, and partly by the ACTU. The proportions were clearly spelt out and the purposes of the mission were also clearly spelt out. We have this question and this drivel about a series of accounts-a few trifling matters about the cost of accommodation. I can tell honourable members opposite that this is one of the cheapest missions that the TDC has ever been involved in. The standard of air fares and the standard of accommodation were quite deliberately kept more modest than the rules of former TDC missions would have otherwise justified, including those sponsored by the previous Government. This was a great economy as far as the Australian taxpayers were concerned. More importantly, the basis of the initial report that this mission has provided to us-and we look forward to the more complete report in the next few weeks-will identify the requirements of the trade union movement and the work force as part of their responsibility in the reconstruction of Australian industry. The honourable member for Dawson might use his forthcoming holiday when he leaves the front bench to study this report and to begin to think about the kinds of issues which confront Australia in this important area. The ACTU, as part of its obligation to pay some $30,000 towards the cost of this trip, provided the money in advance. At this stage it looks as though the amount that the ACTU advanced to the Government to pay its contribution is more than will be required and we will probably have to refund the ACTU some of its own money. In relation to the matters which have been referred to, of course I will have them investigated. Of course, the accounting of this matter will be quite properly done. Mr Braithwaite —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. In view of the reply that has been given, and in order to assist the Minister, I seek leave to table a summary and documentation relative to the excesses of this trip that were prepared as a result of my freedom of information request. Madam SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Dawkins —No. Madam SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Mr Dawkins —We have got this information. We gave it to you, you dope. You got it through FOI. Mr Braithwaite —You couldn't answer the question. Don't you want it? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Trade and the honourable member for Dawson will resume their seats. Mr Rocher —Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you to ask the Minister to withdraw his description of the honourable member for Dawson. Mr Dawkins —I withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Consumer affairs. I ask: What action is the Government taking to reduce the economic and social costs of industrial, traffic and other injuries in Australia? Mr BARRY JONES —The injury problem in Australia is of major dimensions and, as the question suggests, very broadly based. It involves people at work, school and home, apart from recreational activities. Injuries to children causing death and disabilities are of particular concern. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics approximately 600 children under 15 years of age die each year in Australia as a result of accidents. Seventy thousand children are hospitalised and 1,500,000 medical treatments are provided each year as a result of injury. Costs to the community of medical treatment of injuries in Australia have been estimated at $1.1 billion per annum. The Government has taken a major initiative in 1986-87 towards injury reduction with the funding of a pilot national injury surveillance and prevention project. The project is jointly managed by the Australian Institute of Health and the Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia. The project is based on the collection of specific and relevant injury data from accident and emergency departments at selected hospitals and the dissemination of this data to all interested parties, including the people and agencies equipped to develop and implement injury prevention strategies. The project began during 1986 and injury data is currently being collected at Adelaide Children's Hospital, the Modbury Hospital in South Australia and the Sir Charles Gardiner Hospital in Western Australia. The data collection system and data output formats have been designed to provide maximum user benefit. That includes information on the location of the injury event, the activity at the time of injury, the actual event giving rise to the injury, the mechanism of the injury, the nature of the injury and the body parts injured, any product involved in the injury, and the profile of the person injured. The data will be of great benefit to a wide range of both government and community agencies concerned with injury reduction. Within the Federal Consumer Affairs Bureau the data will provide for the first time a reliable data base for setting priorities for the introduction of consumer product safety standards, for the necessary bans on unsafe goods and for consumer product safety education programs. It would be very interesting to find whether this is another initiative that the Opposition wants to oppose and whether on the basis of cost cutting those opposite say `No, protection of children against injury is something that we leave to the free market' or whether they say: `Yes, there is a legitimate role for government and we will support and endorse it'. Let me tell this Opposition that it can expect a far higher level of government activity in this area of product safety with the consolidation of all consumer related activities under the new Consumer Affairs Bureau. It will do a great job for Australia and it deserves the strong support of the Parliament. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In light of the outrageous behaviour of members of the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union, will the Government move to deregister the union? Mr WILLIS —The answer to that question is no. Nor should it be the case that the Government would take that step. Let us be quite clear about this matter. I understand that some stunt in relation to this is proposed by the Opposition for after Question Time. The circumstances under which the Government took action in relation to the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation were highly exceptional and this is not intended to be a normal part of industrial relations behaviour by governments. That was a situation where a union over a long period had broken commitments to all sorts of bodies, courts, commissions and others. Over several years it had alienated itself totally from the trade union movement, from all other building industry unions, from the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all others involved in the industrial relations environment. Those circumstances do not apply to the situation of the plumbers. As much as we deplore the action taken by the plumbers in this dispute it is nowhere near the same situation as applied with the Builders Labourers Federation and which was the basis upon which a very exceptional action by the Federal Government was called for. In my view it would be an absurd over-reaction for the Government to take that action against the Plumbers Union in the present circumstances. I believe that the processes which are in place at the present time are likely to lead to a resolution of that matter in the not too distant future. The action by the Opposition in trying to say that it would now seek to deregister the plumbers indicates what a cretin it is in the area of industrial relations. The whole behaviour of those opposite in the Fraser Government, under which the level of industrial disputation was more than double the level which has prevailed under the present Government, had demonstrated their total incapacity in that area. The policy that they have developed in Opposition, to be implemented by some future Liberal government should they ever be so fortunate as to get into government, demonstrates also their total incapacity to think properly in the area of industrial relations. It is a highly impractical policy which would be a disaster if implemented. The proposal about deregistering the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union demonstrates again their gross ignorance in this area. Ms JAKOBSEN —Is the Minister for Communications aware of criticisms of Telecom Australia's party line service which is currently on trial in Perth? Can he inform the House of the changes Telecom has initiated since this service began? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for her question. Telecom introduced its party line service on a trial basis in Perth on 14 July last year. The party line is essentially a service concept whereby users dial a special telephone number and join an ongoing group discussion. A similar service is presently operating successfully in overseas countries including France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Some criticisms have been made of the service and, in response to findings of an independent market research study, a number of changes were made to the party line service in December last year. The main changes are that the teenage line has been cancelled; the number of callers on each circuit has been reduced from 10 to seven; the number of Telecom monitors has been doubled; and the operators have been given wider scope to remove troublemakers, prevent the exchange of personal information and clamp down on obscene language. Telecom believes that these changes address the major complaints raised about party line, while keeping faith with those who support it. Telecom users who wish to have the service barred can do that but there is considerable difficulty with that, to say the least, because if they do that they will finish up having their STD and ISD services barred as a consequence. At this stage Telecom is examining an alternative solution which may allow the barring of the party line service without barring any other service to the customer. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Further to the answer given by the Minister for Trade to my colleague the honourable member for Dawson, I wonder whether in considering his response he would also answer a letter of 12 February 1987 from Mr Ted Wilshire. Mr Young —This is another question. Mr SINCLAIR —I believe that it is very relevant to the matter. It discloses a $2,500 short fall in repayments being requested from Mr Kelty. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable gentleman is out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Pursuant to statute, I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 18 March 1987 on audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections under the Audit and other Acts-March 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 86 of the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981, I present the annual report of the Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal for 1985-86. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 42 (4) of the National Gallery Act 1975, I present the annual report and financial statements of the Australian National Gallery, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960, I present the annual report and financial statements of the National Library of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report and financial statements of the National Museum of Australia together with the Auditor-General's report for 1985-86. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Dawson has asked for leave of the Chair to make a personal explanation. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —I claim to have been misrepresented in the answer that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) gave me in response to my question. He indicated, apart from some naming of character, that the amount paid in by the trade union movement was in excess of the value of the trip as far as the union movement was concerned. As part of my personal explanation as to where I have been misrepresented I will read a letter of 12 February 1987 from the Department of Trade to Mr Bill Kelty. The letter reads: Following the completion of the acquittal process, the final cost of the TDC-ACTU study mission to Western Europe has been established as $75,117.75. You will recall that the agreement between the Minister for Trade and the ACTU was for the ACTU to pay 4/9ths of the cost. A cheque for the ACTU for $31,040 was lodged with the Department prior to the Mission's departure. It now appears that there is a shortfall of $2,345.08 due to the difference between the forecast cost and the final cost. As this is a matter which has been a matter for Freedom of Information queries by the Opposition, I would appreciate it if you could forward a cheque to the Department as soon as possible. I ask the Minister for Trade: Has that cheque been received? Madam SPEAKER —I call the Minister for Trade. Mr Cadman —Misleading the House again. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will withdraw that comment. Mr Cadman —I withdraw. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —As I indicated in my answer, the accounting process was still proceeding. I will table some information which might be of value to the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) in response to some allegations which were made in the Sunday Telegraph of last Sunday or the Sunday before. I thought it might be useful for the most current information I have to be available to the honourable member for Dawson. If there is any more up-to-date information, of course I will obtain it and provide it to him. I table the documents. Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Dawson. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —In view of the fact that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has tabled some documents for my information, I again seek leave to table this document for his information. Leave not granted. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Rocher and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's Veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of Veterans and their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest,Mr Fife,Mr Nehl,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radio- active substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Reith and Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are `relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses'. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; That we strenuously object to the Federal Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and allergic rhinitis) are `relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses'. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker,Mr Reith and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employer and employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of their choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee control with adequate security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposal to establish memorials to peace, the so-called Aboriginal War and anti-war activists and other left wing causes at the Australian War Memorial at Canberra would desecrate the Memorial as a fitting and solemn monument to those who served in Australia's Armed Forces and to those who died in defence of their country. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives acts to prevent anything which would desecrate the nation's memorial to Australia's former servicemen and women and war dead. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Milton. To the Honourable Speaker and to the Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows: 1. We are thoroughly opposed to the concept of charging fees in any form for higher education. 2. The Administration Charge is inhibiting the participation of sections of our society who already face disincentives to education because of existing disadvantages. 3. Probable escalation of the charge is deterring students from studying. 4. Education provisions of the ALP/ACTU accord and the ALP policy of free education have been contravened. Your petitioners request that the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987, does not include any form of fees or charges for education or administration. by Mr Blanchard. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayer's money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners, therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card; That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life; That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax Office and other Departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: We are concerned that the decisions to be taken by Government with regard to the footwear industry in which we work may not recognise the continuation of a form and level of assistance which will maintain the security of our employment. Your petitioners therefore pray that every consideration and support will be given to this matter so that we are able to maintain our employment in this industry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the United States Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the decision to curtail the landscaping at the New Parliament House is a false economy. The landscaping is an integral part of the building and environs which together will be one of the world's most exciting examples of architectural design this century. Incomplete it will be a monument to our lack of resolve as a nation. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government: (a) reconsider the reinstatement of the landscaping according to the present plans, (b) consider savings which may be made in other areas to ensure this may be achieved. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They consider that the people of the Philippines have been unjustly and corruptly defrauded of large sums of money by ex-President Ferdinand Marcos, his wife and their associates, that much of this ill-gotten wealth has been invested in countries outside the Philippines, including Australia, and that, in the interests of social justice, it should be returned to the Philippines, to be used for the benefit of its people. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Take all possible steps to repatriate to the control of the Philippine government all assets and financial interests that ex-President Marcos, his wife and their associates may have in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Mayer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will humbly pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House of Representatives will continue to fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: The existing Telecom Service in The Gurdies Vic (059 976....) is continuously congested and has been for some years. This is seriously affecting business and emergency calls as well as routine use of the telephone service. Constant complaints to Telecom have brought no improvement and the service is deteriorating more rapidly with the increase in local population. We request that this serious matter be brought to the attention of the responsible Minister and steps be taken to update the service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that In this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That State Branches of some Federally registered unions, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party, are holding up to contempt: (a) Statute laws and decisions of Courts of Law (b) Sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1904 (c) Sections of the International Labour Organisation Agreement (d) Sections of the Magna Carta (e) Sections of Trade Practices Act 1974 (f) Sections of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Specific actions of the A.C.T.U. affiliated Union in particular, the Transport Workers Union of Australia, which is a communist controlled union, has a history of involvement with the worldwide Mafia organisation, and, is a member of an International Transport organisation whose aim is to gain control of transport operations so that they are able to cripple countries, as it suits them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should totally reject any attempt that may be made by the A.L.P. Federal Government to deem any small business entrepreneur in the Road Transport Industry, whether he or she be an self-employed, employer, contractor or sub-contractor, to be an employee. History shows that the transport industry is being ruled by a few power brokers, and that individuals, and their families, are being destroyed and denied natural justice. This can only be corrected in the Federal Parliament, and must be for the long term recovery of Australia and its citizens. God save the Queen! And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. The Honourable Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned, being aware of the parlous state of the building and housing industry in Australia arising from interest rates which are much higher than those current in comparable nations of the western world, do hereby urge the speedy implementation of tax free deposit investment funds to be allocated for housing known colloquially as ``Granny Bonds'' to assist the housing industry by the immediate allocation of cheaper interest housing loans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectively showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson respectfully shows that while most urban areas of Australia enjoy ABC FM radio transmission, the Mackay region of Queensland is still deprived of this facility. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will immediately take steps to rectify transmission anomalies which continue to prevent approximately 100,000 potential listeners in this region from receiving this service. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable taxation deductions; That the Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is an unwarranted burden on the small business and rural sectors, which will severely affect their long term viability. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government withdraws the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation without delay. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, residents of the City of Whyalla, in the State of South Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government and humbly showeth that: The voting public of the Grey Electorate did in March 1983 and again in December 1984, vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who claimed to stand for a Multicultural Australia. Your petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement Multicultural Television in the city of Whyalla and other country areas, without any further delays. We declare that the implementation could become possible by; 1. Broadcasting Multicultural Television in the ABC, at morning times or; 2. SBS Transmitter to be connected to the Australian Satellite-thus providing a Multicultural Television service all over our Nation. Both of these options have been proposed to the ABC Advisory Council (SA) at a recently held Whyalla Public Meeting. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed towards projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deed to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfetted common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government acts urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Assent reported. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —I ask for leave of the House to move a motion to enable notices Nos 1 and 2, General Business, given on 19 March 1987 to be called on. Leave not granted. Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.59) —As leave is not granted, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent notice No. 1, general business, for the presentation of the Plumbers Union (Cancellation of Registration) Bill being called on forthwith and, after the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of that Bill, notice No. 2, general business, for the presentation of the Plumbers Union (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill being called on. It is, the Opposition submits, a matter of great urgency that Standing Orders be set aside today to enable debate on the Plumbers Union (Cancellation of Registration) Bill and the Plumbers Union (Cancellation of Registration-Consequential Provisions) Bill-Bills to deregister the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia. It is a matter of urgency that this be done because it has now been shown that the Government as a whole, and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in particular, will not stand up to the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union. It will not take strong action when it is needed and, indeed, it is clear that it will not take any action at all against this renegade union, the Plumbers Union. Standing Orders should be set aside, therefore, to allow these two Bills to be brought on for debate. The two Bills, of course, are modelled on the Government's own legislation to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. The first of these two Bills will do that-it will deregister the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia. The second Bill will prevent any award of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from applying to the Union or to its members, and will prevent it from taking part in any proceedings of the Arbitration Commission. That second Bill will, in effect, rub out the Plumbers Union for 10 years. It is urgent that Standing Orders be set aside so that the House can debate these two Bills. It is urgent for several reasons. In the first place, the Plumbers Union is now an industrial leper. It is the new Builders Labourers Federation and it should be treated in exactly the same way. Until it is treated in the same way as the BLF was treated it will continue to behave like the renegade that it is and it will continue to wreak industrial havoc in the building industry. So it is urgent to set aside Standing Orders because it is urgent that the Plumbers Union be brought to heel. Secondly, it is urgent that these Bills be brought on today because the Government, frankly, will do nothing to bring the Plumbers Union into line. It is therefore up to the Opposition to take over that responsibility which the Government should be recognising. In support of this, let me remind the House that yesterday, when the campaign of terror of the Plumbers Union was brought to the notice of the Minister, all that he could do was to give the Plumbers Union the weakest and most pathetic wrap over the knuckles imaginable. What did he say? He called on the Union to behave itself. He said: `Please behave yourselves and go back to work through the system'. We say that much stronger action than that is needed and the Government should have told the Union that it will simply not stand by and do nothing while a union such as the Plumbers Union blatantly ignores the wage fixing principles, continues to make extravagant demands for wage increases, continues to engage in industrial thuggery and, most importantly, continues to show contempt for the laws and courts of this country. There are many courses open to the Government. It could have started proceedings for deregistration itself. It could have got itself involved in the section 45d proceedings. It could have supported the legislation that we are putting forward today. But no, it does none of those things. It simply weakly and pathetically says that it calls on the Union to behave itself. We say that that is not good enough, and it is not surprising in the slightest that when that message was sent out to the Union it treated that weak call with the contempt that it deserves. The third reason why Standing Orders should be set aside is that it is now urgent to debate these Bills simply because the Plumbers Union is showing absolute and complete contempt for the law and for the courts. It shows no respect whatsoever for court orders or decrees. The plain facts are that the Union is now in contempt of court, because it has failed to comply with an order by the Federal Court of Australia that it should lift its work bans on 14 building sites by midday on Tuesday. That was the plain order of the Court. The Union has refused to comply with that order and it is therefore thumbing its nose at one of the highest courts of this land. That sort of conduct simply cannot be allowed to continue without some sort of strong protest and without a strong response from the Government. While the Government refuses to take that firm action it is clearly up to the Opposition to take that action on its behalf. Furthermore, we say that the Plumbers Union has engaged, clearly-and this is the sort of conduct we must stop by such Bills as these-in a concerted campaign of industrial thuggery spread over some nine months. It has put bans on 40 building sites in Victoria, on 25 building sites in New South Wales, and on nine in South Australia. Those bans have existed now for about nine months. They are in support of a pay rise of no less than-wait for it-$70 a week and, if that were not enough, another $52 a week being pursued by building unions in general. Not only does the union want that but, of course, it wants more than everyone else in superannuation payments-an additional $12.50. Mr Cobb —Where will it end? Mr N.A. Brown —The honourable member may well ask where it will end. To pursue those claims, of course, the union does not go through the normal processes. It imposes industrial bans on building sites to force by means of industrial thuggery what it could not get properly through the system. We in the Opposition say that when a union ignores the law in that way, when it shows it has absolute contempt for the courts, when it ignores blatantly court orders and decrees, and when it is concerned not in the slightest degree about following procedures that everyone else has to follow and goes off on its own rogue case, we say that in response to that the strongest, firmest and most prompt action possible must be taken against that organisation. The ultimate sanction to those trade unions that live in a world of monopoly power and protection is to deregister them from the Arbitration Commission and deny them the benefits that that exclusive registration confers on them. What is the Plumbers Union doing now? Because of its industrial action it is costing jobs; it is holding up the completion of millions of dollars worth of building projects; it is stopping construction work in Victoria, New South Wales and throughout the country. This industrial action-and there are many examples of it-is nothing more than blackmail to bludgeon from employers extravagant wage increases which the industry and the economy cannot afford and to which the Union is quite clearly not entitled under the wage fixing principles. At Question Time this afternoon, in response to a question from the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr), we heard the last piece of evidence that needs to be shown to demonstrate why Standing Orders should be set aside so that these Bills can be debated. The honourable member for Lyons asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations-the Minister who is supposed to be in charge of keeping trade unions in line and within the system-whether he would deregister the Plumbers Union and if he would not, why he would not. The Minister had three excuses for why there was no comparison between the Plumbers Union and the Builders Labourers Federation. We reject all of the three excuses he gave. The first excuse he made was that the Builders Labourers Federation had been engaging in industrial thuggery for a long time. We say that the Plumbers Union has engaged in industrial thuggery for a long time. Not only has it had these particular bans imposed for nine months, but it has years and years of industrial irresponsibility and thuggery behind it. It is time we stood up as a Parliament and as a nation to this union and said: `We have had enough; you should be deregistered'. The second excuse that was given by the Minister-they were all, of course, nothing more than excuses-was that the Builders Labourers Federation broke court orders and decrees; he said that it did not comply with court orders. As I have already said, the Plumbers Union is in contempt of court and should be deregistered for that reason alone. Thirdly, the Minister said that the Plumbers Union is not like the BLF because the BLF alienated itself from the trade union movement. This union also has alienated itself from the trade union movement. But not only has it alienated itself from the trade union movement; it has alienated itself from its own members, the employees and workers in the industry, from employers and from any right thinking person who cares to think about the issues. It is for those reasons that the case is analagous with that of the Builders Labourers Federation. It is for those reasons that it is urgent that we set aside Standing Orders. We should deregister the Plumbers Union. We should introduce, debate and pass these Bills today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr BURR(Lyons)(3.09) —I have great pleasure in seconding this very responsible motion from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown). The Opposition is forced into this position of bringing forward a private member's Bill to do the responsible thing, to deregister the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Employees Union of Australia, simply because this Government does not have the guts to do it itself. We would prefer that this Government did the responsible thing-to bring forward the action itself-because that is the responsibility of government. We did not want to have to move into the position of suspending Standing Orders so that the Opposition could bring forward this private member's Bill. But the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has proved without any shadow of doubt that he does not have the guts to bring forward this responsible action because he is a toad of the trade union movement. We are not prepared to see the building industry in this country simply brought to heel by irresponsible trade union action. If this Government will not take the responsible action to protect the building industry in this country we will take on that responsibility from the Opposition benches. We would prefer the Government to govern this country. But if it will not, we will do our best to govern this country responsibly from the Opposition benches. The Minister acknowledged yesterday that the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Employees Union is acting in a most irresponsible manner. As the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party said, the Minister's response was to stand up high on his haunches and give the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Union a flogging with a feather. That was the best he could do. Mr Cobb —A white feather at that. Mr BURR —It probably was a white feather, too; I acknowledge that. But the Minister knows full well that what is happening in the trade union movement is that those rebels, those rogues that the Minister talked about earlier, who once caused chaos and havoc in the building industry from their positions in the Builders Labourers Federation, have now moved into the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Employees Union and have every intention of causing the same disruptive campaign in that union. In the case of the Builders Labourers Federation, it took this Government a long time to see sense. We all remember how it went to water; how, when it took over government in 1983, it discontinued the action of the Fraser Government to deregister the Builders Labourers Federation. It took it some considerable time before it saw the sense of the Fraser Government's actions. But now what it is doing is allowing that same disruption to take place in another union-the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Union. It knows what the effect will be. It knows how disruptive it will be. Yet the Government wants to sit on its hands and do nothing. Yesterday the Minister said: `Look, fellers, you are doing the wrong thing, you are being naughty boys'. What is the effect? What is the union doing? I quote some headlines from today's newspapers: `Plumbers union isolated in $92 pay claim'. Ninety-two dollars a week! The Minister says: `Look, fellers, you are not really playing the game'. Here are some more headlines: `Builders sue plumbers for damages over bans'; `Plumbers to face court test this week'; `Plumbers facing contempt threat'; `Employers to fight plumbers in courts'. We could have seen all of those headlines two or three years ago, but instead of referring to the Plumbers Union, they would have referred to the Builders Labourers Federation. We are seeing exactly the same campaign by the same people, using the front of a different union. There is no doubt, in light of the evidence that I have given and in light of the evidence given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that Standing Orders must be suspended. Action must be taken. We cannot allow this union to continue with its disruptive campaign. We cannot allow the building industry in Australia to be brought to its knees, because we know the escalating costs, disruption and difficulties that already exist in the building industry. We do not want the position to get worse. The only option that the Opposition has is to try its damnedest to bring forward a private member's Bill to undertake that action that the Government should be undertaking. But if Government members do not have the guts to do it, I assure them that we have the guts. We will take on the union movement. We will do the responsible thing by the building industry and by other industries in Australia. We will deregister this union. We will deregister any union that is not prepared to play the game. We want this country to prosper. We want industries to prosper. If the Government is going to protect its mates in the trade union movement, for no other reason than that they give it money and support, we are not prepared to accept that. We want this union to be deregistered, and if the Government does not have the guts to do it, we will do it ourselves. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(3.15) —Obviously, the Government rejects this token gesture by the Opposition. One must say that members of the Opposition are tigers in opposition, but pussycats in government. When they were in government absolutely nothing was done in terms of dealing with the problems of industrial relations in this country. Since they have been in opposition they have been an absolute joke with regard to almost any comment that they make in the industrial relations field. The honourable member for Lyons (Mr Burr) keeps telling us how much guts he has. He might add that it would help to have some brains to solve some of the problems he is concerned about. We do not have industrial relations in pigeonholes for different groups of people. We are applying a system of industrial relations to deal with the millions of people who work in this country, in order to see that they have a decent set of rules under which they can work and abide by. Everybody in Australia knows the Government's attitude to the recent campaign by the Plumbers and Gas Fitters Employees Union. One of the reasons that it has not been successful is the stand of this Government. The employers know that if they get into bed with the plumbers on their claims, they will not get government contracts. One of the reasons why the plumbers will not be successful is that they have been completely isolated, not only by this Government but by State governments and by their colleagues in the trade union movement. We do not need the advice of this patched-up Opposition about industrial relations. Honourable members opposite have not put forward in four years one decent idea on the industrial relations front. In 1983 we had to extract the work force out of a wages freeze. We had to build into the industrial relations system an acceptable wages system that would avoid all the industrial turmoil and disputation that could be brought on our heads if we made the wrong decisions. What did we do? We gave the working people of Australia a combined wages-tax system that has minimised industrial disputation to a third of what it was under the Fraser-Howard Government. If honourable members opposite want to know why people were not on strike in 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and now 1987 in the way in which they were between 1975 and 1983 it is because of the sensible attitudes that have been adopted by this Government. This proposition is a joke, coming from a bunch of juveniles. They cannot even sort out their own problems in their party room. They have four factions which all fight every day. It is no wonder that they want to talk about the plumbers; their party rooms are leaking every day. They cannot solve their own problems, but they want to tell the rest of Australia how to live. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), said that the plumbers are in exactly the same position as the builders labourers. He does not know anything about what is happening outside this chamber. He does not have a clue as to the interrelationships between people on jobs and how they have to make their living-whether they are craft, semi-skilled or completely unskilled workers. He might have to tell his party room, now that he has come up with this bright idea about private members' Bills-he has sucked in the poor old former chairman of the industrial relations committee, the honourable member for Lyons, to support this mad idea-which union will sign up the plumbers when the Opposition deregisters them. Which union has come forward and said that it will take the members of the Plumbers Union? The Building Workers Industrial Union, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association and the Australian Workers Union said that they would take the members of the BLF because the BLF had reached the end of the line. Did honourable members opposite see that on the hill, in every job in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria, when the BLF was deregistered by this Government-not only by the former conservative Government, but by this Government-members of those other unions signed them up for their respective unions, so that there was no break in their union membership. Yet the Opposition wants to tell us what will happen on the grass, in the field of industrial relations. The other bright idea of members of the Opposition, apart from attacking the plumbers, is that for 18 of the last 20 national wage cases, this group opposite, their predecessors or an amalgam of both, have told us that there ought to be a wages freeze. That is still their policy-a complete wages freeze. Those opposite want to put an 8 per cent new tax, as we are reminded every day by the demon from Queensland, on everything we buy in Australia but they want to freeze wages. Is that not a great policy? Is that not a terrific way to approach industrial relations? There would be a wages breakout and a succession of strikes throughout this country never seen previously, with the mixture of economic and industrial relations policies that those opposite want to put forward. They are so lacking in ideas; they are so split and in such turmoil. They sit there as one group while two say that they are leaving and another 10 say that they will leave next week. Flo is in and out like a fiddler's elbow-we do not know whether she is in or out. We have members of the Liberal Party sitting opposite, and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) is waiting only until next week and then he will leave. We see Andrew over there looking nice, having come out from under the hair-dryer. He is just waiting to pick up another nine votes before he becomes the Leader. They sit there seriously and talk to us about what we should be doing about industrial relations. There has never been such a miserable group of incompetents on the Opposition benches. They do not have one idea in any major field to put forward that this Government can take seriously. In industrial relations this Government has been the most successful government since World War II. Not only have we got the wages policy correct and acceptable to the vast majority of working people, but we got it at a time when we minimised strikes and increased the number of people who were able to go to work. These things were only talked about under the Fraser Government. This Government will get inflation down and will provide a lot more work for the people of Australia. Those opposite pushed up inflation to 12 per cent and in their last year of office put another 250,000 people out of work, and they had a record number of strikes. Who out there in the community will be silly enough to buy that recipe again? Who will buy that from the Liberals and the conservatives? Have we ever seen such a bunch trying to put up ideas? I suggest that honourable members opposite go back to their party rooms and have a serious think about their policy. We are very interested to see where their guts are. Those opposite say that they have the guts to take the tough decisions. We want to know about a few of their decisions. We want to know about their taxation policy. Apparently, those opposite have plenty of guts to attack the Plumbers Union, but not enough guts to tell the Australian community what they will do about taxation. We want to know about the 8 per cent value added tax. The shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), and the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), tell us that we are to have a consumption tax. If those opposite have a bit of guts, if they are standing around in their party rooms unbuttoning shirts and showing hair on their chests, let them tell us about their taxation policy, because in the field of industrial relations they cannot tell us anything. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition tries to tell us how he will sort out all the problems on the building sites. Can one imagine sending the Deputy Leader of the Opposition around a building site and saying, `Listen, fellows, here he is; here's the shop steward from the national Parliament. He'll tell you how to sort out your problems'. Imagine plumbers to the left, building workers to the right and the FEDFA in the middle. He has no idea what is happening out there. He needs to stop reading books, put on a pair of dungarees and go out to meet a few of the workers. They will tell him what happens. In the meantime, while he is out there, will he have a yarn to a few people to see who will sign up the plumbers, find out which union constitutionally will sign them up? The plumbers will not be successful, because of the stand of this Government. I conclude by saying that in industrial relations this Government, particularly the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), has been an outstanding success. In the field of industrial relations no one in this country will vote for the policies the Opposition is putting forward. Question put: That the motion (Mr N.A. Brown's) be agreed to. The House divided. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hodges, J. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charles, D. E. Lee, M. Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J. Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J. Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Hollis, C. West, S. J. Howe, B. L. Willis, R. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Brown, John Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effect on home owners, buyers and tenants of the Hawke Government's high interest rate and high taxation policies. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Watson, D. J. H.Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Brown, John Shack, P. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 264th report of the Committee relating to the Public Accounts Committee and the Senate. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr TICKNER —by leave-Report 264 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts examines the question of concurrent sittings of the Public Accounts Committee and the Senate, and is a response to part of a report of the Standing Orders Committee tabled in the Senate on 6 October 1983. Disagreement has arisen between the Senate and the Public Accounts Committee about whether the Committee has the right to sit while the Senate is sitting. The Senate is of the view that the Committee has no such right and cannot sit during Senate sittings without the authority of the Senate to do so. On the other hand, the Committee believes it has a statutory right under section 6a (1) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 to sit whenever it determines. Because of the extreme difficulties that the Committee would encounter in arranging sufficient meetings to enable it to carry out its program and not clash with Senate sittings, the Committee feels it should formally make known its opinion on the question of concurrent sittings. The Senate has based its argument that the Committee is not entitled to sit without the Senate's authority on Senate standing order 300, which states: A Select Committee may adjourn from time to time, and, by Order of the Senate, from place to place; and may sit on those days over which the Senate is adjourned; but no Select Committee may sit during the sittings of the Senate. The Committee believes it has legislative authority to determine when it sits under section 6a (1) of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, which provides: The Committee may meet at such times and at such places within Australia as the Committee, by resolution, determines or, subject to any resolution of the Committee, as the Chairman determines, but shall not meet at any place outside Australia. The Committee has obtained legal advice on this matter from the Attorney-General's Department, the then Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, and the Hon. Justice Paul Toose, CBE. All legal opinions have been to the effect that the Committee is not a select committee of the Senate and that therefore Senate standing order 300 does not apply to it. The opinions have advised that the Committee is a statutory committee and, accordingly, is regulated solely by the terms of the statute under which it was established. A problem has never arisen with the House of Representatives on the question of concurrent sittings because this House has no standing order similar to Senate standing order 300 and has a policy of allowing committees to meet while it is sitting. In view of the legal advice that the Committee has received and the heavy work load that it has to complete, it believes it has no option but to meet at such times as it deems necessary. Hopefully, the Committee's meeting times will not inconvenience the Senate and both the Committee and the Senate will be able to carry out their functions effectively. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I thank the House for its courtesy in allowing me to add a few remarks about the report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I am a relatively new member of it, and I must say that I was not aware of the strength of the view that the Senate has on this question. I think honourable members ought to know that the matter has brought some disrepute upon the Parliament because of the conflict that has emerged. A program that some of us watch from time to time is called the Carleton-Walsh Report. I do not know whether honourable members recall that on one occasion last year, when the Parliament was discussing the question of work practices, as I recall, a reporter for that program mentioned the work practices of the Parliament and described the Standing Orders of the Senate and the conflict with the Public Accounts Committee Act as perhaps the work practices of this institution. On that occasion the Committee was sitting, deliberating, and had brought a number of very senior public servants to Canberra at expense to give evidence; and the Committee's hearings had to be discontinued because of the strength of view amongst our colleagues in the Senate on this question. It is a very difficult and very vexed question but, while it continues unresolved or while some people want to dispute the efficacy of the opinions that have been proffered on this matter, it can only serve to bring the Parliament collectively into disrepute. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —By indulgence, I point out that today in Question Time, in answer to a question from the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), I misread the documents that I subsequently tabled, and I find that the Government will be receiving a further payment from the Australian Council of Trade Unions to cover its share of the cost of the mission. I apologise for this occurrence. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Madam SPEAKER —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill has two main purposes. In the first place it seeks to avoid the consequences of the interpretation of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 in its application to the Australian Parliament in judgments given in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in each trial in R. v. Murphy. Secondly, the Bill seeks to give effect to recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which require legislation in order to be implemented. Honourable members will recall that on 4 June last I presented to the House a draft Parliamentary Privileges Bill which was also presented to the Senate on the same day by President McClelland. It is, as I stated on 4 June, an unprecedented step for a Presiding Officer to initiate legislation but this step was taken because of the great importance to both Houses of the matters involved. On the advice received, the judgments in question represented a serious threat to the freedom of speech in Parliament, and an equally serious threat to the protection of witnesses who give evidence to parliamentary committees. The Senate was primarily concerned in this matter because the decisions related to the use in court proceedings of statements made to Senate committees. However, because in a wider sense the issues were of equal importance to the House of Representatives I was involved and followed developments closely. As I indicated on 4 June, many members of the House voiced to me their concern at the situation. The view was taken that any legislation drafted to restore the traditional interpretation of Article 9 should also give senators and members an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Some refinements were made to the draft Bill presented last June. The present Bill was introduced last October by President McClelland, and it was amended during its passage through the Senate. I present an explanatory memorandum to the Bill as passed by the Senate, and also the following papers: Documents presented to the Senate by President McClelland on 7 October 1986; An opinion on the Bill by Mr C. K. Comans, QC, consultant draftsman to the Senate; Reasons for judgment by Mr Justice Carruthers in R. v Jackson and others; Extracts from the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 June 1986. Returning to the background to the introduction of the Bill, Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which applies to the Australian Parliament by virtue of section 49 of the Constitution, provides: That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament. It has long been accepted that this prevents parliamentary proceedings from being called into question in the broadest sense in proceedings before any court or tribunal. This interpretation was supported and applied in a number of judgments in British and Australian courts which are referred to in the documents I have presented. These judgments and the long-established interpretation of Article 9 which they embodied were, however, not followed in recent judgments given in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The late Mr Justice Cantor's judgment, given on 5 June 1985, was to the effect that the test of a breach of Article 9 is any adverse effect on parliamentary proceedings, and that the protection provided by Article 9 must be balanced against the requirement of court proceedings. In the course of the trial of the late Mr Justice Murphy, witnesses and the accused were rigorously cross-examined on the evidence which they gave to Senate committees, including in camera evidence. The truth of that evidence was questioned, and submissions were made as to the credibility of witnesses and the accused based on that questioning. In his judgment, Mr Justice Hunt ruled that this use of parliamentary proceedings is not in breach of Article 9 because the latter is restricted to preventing the prosecution or suit of a person for what that person has said or done in the actual course of the parliamentary proceedings. According to this judgment, it is not a breach of Article 9 to use parliamentary proceedings as evidence of an offence or of a civil liability, to establish the motive or intention of a person for the purpose of proving an offence or a civil liability, or to attack the credibility of a person. This judgment may not necessarily be followed by other courts and, indeed, a contrary judgment has already been given. In Australian Broadcasting Commission and Another v. Chatterton and Chapman v. Chatterton, on 12 August 1986, the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Mr Justice Zelling, adhered to the traditional interpretation of Article 9, notwithstanding that the judgment and reasons of Hunt, J. were submitted to him. He held that what was said in Parliament by a defendant in a defamation action could not be used to support the cause of action by adding to or explaining what was said outside Parliament. His Honour stated: What was said in Parliament cannot be used to extend the meaning of what was said outside Parliament . . . The `untruth' relied on by the Judge (in the trial the subject of appeal) could only be proved by using the appellant Chapman's words in Parliament. His Honour also rejected a submission that the member of parliament in question had waived his privilege, stating that such a waiver is not possible. The questions involved in the interpretation of Article 9 were also raised in the trial in the New South Wales Supreme Court in R. v. Jackson and Others, in which the Crown proposed to use statements by one of the defendants in Parliament as evidence of conspiracy on the part of the defendant. I understand that the judge in that case, Mr Justice Carruthers, would not allow such use of the defendant's statements in Parliament, and a copy of his reasons is amongst the papers I have presented. Apart from these judgments, there are a number of arguments in favour of the view that Mr Justice Hunt's interpretation of Article 9 is not correct. These are set out in detail in one of the papers I have presented. These interpretations of Article 9 contained in the judgments in question, if followed, were considered to pose a serious threat to the freedom of speech of members of parliament, to whom it applies as well as to witnesses before parliamentary committees. According to the judgment, while a member may not be sued or prosecuted for something the member has said or done in the actual course of parliamentary proceedings, the member's participation in those parliamentary proceedings could be used against the member to establish the member's motive or intention in relation to words said or acts done outside parliament and to support an action, civil or criminal, in relation to such words or acts. In short, the judgment of Mr Justice Hunt would allow a member's participation in parliamentary proceedings to be used against the member in court proceedings in a way not thought possible hitherto. The judgment would allow similar use to be made of evidence given by witnesses before parliamentary committees. Witnesses have often given evidence which is necessary for the purpose of an inquiry and which could, if given elsewhere, expose them to the risk of civil or criminal action, or be used as evidence of an offence or a civil liability. The judgment of Mr Justice Hunt obviously reduces the protection afforded to witnesses by parliamentary inquiries and could make the securing of full evidence more difficult in the future. Indeed, it may well create a situation where witnesses, with what they would see as justification, are reluctant to accept the invitation to attend and give evidence. This could lead to problems in continuing the present committee system, perhaps forcing the use of compulsive measures, which many would see as undesirable and, in many cases, unproductive. If the powers, which have not been used to a large extent in the past, of compelling witnesses to give evidence under threat of punishment were to be invoked, it would appear unfair to leave those witnesses exposed to the use of that evidence against them in future court proceedings. This Bill would prevent such use of parliamentary proceedings and would uphold the long-established interpretation of Article 9. The Bill proceeds from the starting point that Article 9 is part of the law of Australia under section 49 of the Constitution, and then indicates that it is to be given the broad and previously established interpretation. This has been done, first, because the Bill must start with a general declaration of the immunity of parliamentary proceedings from question or examination, and the language of Article 9 is difficult to improve upon; and, secondly, to make clear the Parliament's belief that Article 9 should properly be interpreted as the Bill provides and always should have been interpreted that way. The Bill would also prohibit the unauthorised use of evidence taken in camera and not released by a committee or the House concerned. Such unauthorised use of in camera evidence occurred in both trials in R. v. Murphy. The inquiry by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege was the most comprehensive review of the law and practice of parliamentary privilege in the history of our Parliament. Whilst the Committee did not recommend the transfer of the penal jurisdiction, as many had argued, it proposed important changes to adapt the law and practice in relation to matters of privilege and contempt to the needs of the Parliament at this time and in the future. Changes to the law proposed in the Bill are explained in detail in the explanatory memorandum, but amongst the most important changes are provisions for the Houses to impose fines, the removal of the power to expel members, detailed provisions concerning resolutions and warrants for committal, and statutory provisions for the protection of witnesses. I commend the Bill to the House and, I look forward to the debate on the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to promote equal employment opportunity in those areas of Australian Government employment that are not already covered by the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 or by section 22b of the Public Service Act 1922. The Bill will apply to a wide range of Commonwealth statutory authorities, including major government business enterprises such as Telecom Australia, Australia Post and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Primary industry statutory marketing authorities which are not covered by the Bill will amend their establishing legislation in the near future to provide for the development of equal employment opportunity programs. The passage of this legislation will ensure that the overwhelming majority of Australian government employing authorities are required to develop equal employment opportunity or affirmative action programs. The object of equal employment opportunity programs is to eliminate discrimination against women, migrants whose first language is not English and their children, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, and disabled persons. Equal employment opportunity assumes that freedom of choice of occupation is a basic social right which should not be constrained by criteria unrelated to ability to perform the job. It promotes efficiency by avoiding waste of talent and underutilisation and underdevelopment of human resources which result from discrimination. Equal employment opportunity programs are designed to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and equitably. Such programs operate to the advantage of the individuals directly concerned, the employing authorities and the community as a whole. This Bill is the third piece of legislation to give effect to the Government's commitment to equal employment opportunity. In 1984 the Government amended the Public Service Act 1922 to require Commonwealth Government departments and prescribed authorities to develop equal employment opportunity programs. Departments and authorities submitted their first programs to the Public Service Board during 1985-86. It is too soon to provide an overall assessment of the impact of these programs. It is apparent, however, that the development of equal employment opportunity plans has significantly strengthened the application of the merit principle in staffing and justice in personnel practices. The Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 was proclaimed on 1 October 1986. The Act requires all higher education institutions and companies employing 100 or more staff to develop affirmative action programs and report on their progress to government. That legislation was developed as a result of the year-long affirmative action pilot program which involved consultation between 28 of Australia's largest companies, employer organisations, trade unions, women's groups, higher education bodies and the Federal Opposition. The Act requires companies and higher education institutions to progress with programs of affirmative action for women which, through the review of employment practices including personnel policies and procedures, will promote equal employment opportunity for all Australians. It also allows for the level of flexibility in implementation that private industry suggested was essential for affirmative action to be successful. As a result affirmative action programs are to be integrated into the management of organisations and will become part of the mainstream planning activities of business. The Act established the Affirmative Action Agency to assist employers develop their programs and to monitor their progress. The Agency is continuing the consultation process of the pilot program. The Agency is also preparing guidelines and developing education and training strategies to meet the needs of employers on affirmative action. Higher education institutions commenced their affirmative action programs on 1 October 1986 and will report to government on 1 October 1987. Private sector organisations will commence their programs over a three-year period. Companies with more than 1,000 employees commenced their programs on 1 February this year. Their first reports will be due on 1 February 1988. I am pleased to be able to say that business has responded positively to the legislation. Indeed, major employers have welcomed the initiative as making good business sense. The Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1987, which is now before the House, builds on these two initiatives of the Hawke Labor Government. I will now outline the major features of the Bill. The Bill covers Commonwealth statutory authorities employing 40 or more employees which are not already covered by section 22b of the Public Service Act 1922 or section 3 of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. The Bill does not cover the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wool Corporation. These authorities will have their establishing legislation amended in the near future to provide for the development of equal employment opportunity programs. Designated authorities will be required to commence the development of equal employment opportunity programs on 1 July 1987 unless some other date is prescribed. Statutory authorities which subsequently come within the operation of the Bill will be required to develop equal employment opportunity programs from the date this occurs. The Bill sets out minimum requirements for equal employment opportunity programs to be developed and implemented by the authorities concerned. Programs will be developed in consultation with employees, particularly women and members of designated groups, and with relevant trade unions. A fundamental feature of the equal employment opportunity program is a review of policies and practices to identify any which discriminate against women and members of designated groups. The review will be wide-ranging and cover recruitment and selection procedures, promotion and transfer of employees, training and staff development and conditions of service. Authorities will be required to set program objectives and quantitative indicators of effectiveness and to monitor and evaluate the success of their programs against these objectives and indicators. I wish to emphasise the programs are not intended to lead to, and will not lead to, positive discrimination. The Bill expressly confirms that employment matters are to be dealt with on the basis of merit, and the whole thrust of the legislation will strengthen the merit principle, by ensuring the review of any existing discriminatory personnel or employment procedures. Authorities will be required to make annual reports on the development and implementation of their programs. These reports may be lodged either with their portfolio Minister or the Public Service Board. The portfolio Minister or the Public Service Board, as the case may be, may also require the authority to make special reports. Annual reports and special reports lodged by authorities with the portfolio Minister will be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. The Public Service Board will exercise powers under this legislation which are comparable with its powers in regard to equal employment opportunity programs for Commonwealth departments and prescribed authorities under section 22b of the Public Service Act. It may issue guidelines on the development, implementation and review of programs to authorities that have elected to lodge reports with it. The Board will also report to the Prime Minister on the operations of the Bill in the Public Service Board annual report. The portfolio Minister or the Public Service Board may make recommendations to the authority, after considering its annual report, on action to improve the effectiveness of the program. If the authority does not concur with the recommendations it will be required to advise the Minister or the Public Service Board of its reasons for not concurring. Financial Impact There will be a minimal financial impact on statutory authorities as a result of the allocation of some staff resources to equal employment opportunity programs. I present the explanatory memorandum. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(4.08) —The National Health Amendment Bill 1987 contains a number of amendments to the National Health Act which affect the pharmaceutical benefits scheme safety net and special patient contribution arrangements. These amendments in the legislation provide a safety net which enables families, in particular those with many young children, who might be running up a number of prescriptions in one year to be able to obtain their prescriptions free after the first 25 drugs have been prescribed and given to them. I am sure that honourable members will immediately recognise the common sense and necessity of these amendments and welcome them as an important part of the legislation. The first amendment in the legislation to which I alluded may arise if, for example, a patient receives a prescription which could be valid for a period. To be eligible for the 25 scripts allowed under the safety net a chemist must dispense the maximum dosage prescribed by a doctor. This amendment is one of two which looks at the maximum drug dosage. These amendments are necessary because of a need to allow the maximum dose or the quantity of the prescribed drug to be increased and still be eligible for entry on the pharmaceutical entitlements card and also a need to allow less than the maximum dosage of dangerous or addictive drugs to be prescribed under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and still remain eligible for the entitlements. However, the maximum dosages are liable, in certain cases, to be altered by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Council-the authority which advises the Government on its pharmaceutical policies. The first amendment to which I referred simply allows the repeat scripts to be eligible for the safety net because they were prescribed before the change to recommended dosages. Similarly, the latter amendment allows for patients to be prescribed dosages of dangerous and addictive drugs at less than maximum dosages. These two amendments therefore allow further flexibility in the system and minimise any possible inconvenience or difficulty in receiving the full benefit of the safety net arrangements. That is what this Government and particularly the Department of Health under the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) are about. They are looking at putting into effect amendments which will facilitate the provision of these important benefits to the public. I would like again to record my congratulations to pharmacists generally who have accepted with patience some administrative pile-ups and extra paper work which were necessitated by the introduction of this important safety net scheme. The amendments being discussed provide ways of alleviating and ironing out those problems, and I am sure that they will be well received by health providers. This is particularly important, as I indicated earlier, as the cost of pharmaceuticals can be a significant factor in the budget of a family with children or individual patients with an unfortunate reliance on certain prescribed medications. Any scheme which effectively offsets the impact of these costs on families is a worthy and genuine health reform and deserves endorsement by this Parliament-by members on both sides-and by the people of Australia. I therefore feel that these changes and others in the legislation should be considered not only as an important part of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme but also as a comprehensive health policy platform which represents the only alternative control capable of ensuring adequate health cover for all Australians. I stress this because, at a time when questions of reducing our deficit are largely dominating the discussions of economic policy, a considerable element in the conservative side of the political spectrum has loudly decried not only the pharmaceutical benefits scheme but, further, the entire network of essential reform which has characterised health policy under this Government. I proudly support the intentions of this legislation and other elements of the Government's health policy, particularly Medicare, which despite the difficult economic circumstances remains the most equitable and beneficial system of health care for the Australian people. Under Fraser, the old health scheme was a shambles. In noting the considerable success of Medicare under this Government, I point to several notable initiatives in recent health policy which exemplify the sensible policy directions of the Government and highlight the inadequacies of the alternatives provided by the Opposition. They include the establishment of the Better Health Commission; the priority given to the fight against the acquired immune deficiency syndrome; the enormous initiatives at both State and Federal level; the campaign against drug abuse, which the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) did nothing but pull down; the establishment of national liver and heart transplant units; a bicentennial health program, which will lead to prevention and public health care and which is responsive to the needs of the future; and the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. All these initiatives of reform are occurring despite the difficulties being felt in our external economy and give credence to the view that this Government remains committed to worthwhile reform, regardless of economic pressure or the efforts of self-interest groups. This can be shown by the fact that, in addition to the reforms mentioned earlier, responsive changes have been made within Medicare to ensure the maintenance of its primary objectives. I refer here to the standardisation of the schedule fee rebate which, until the sensible intervention of my colleague the Minister for Health, had discriminated against Medicare patients in my home State of Queensland for many years. I am happy to say that these inequalities have been eliminated by this Government. All Australians now receive the same refund for services from their national health care scheme. When viewed collectively, such initiatives represent an active and progressive stance in health policy. The amendments we are debating here today are a worthwhile part of that program and will continue to contribute greatly to this Government's efforts to pursue its health policy on the basis of fairness, equity and sound economic management. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(4.16) —In entering this debate on the National Health Amendment Bill I find it extremely difficult to settle on any one or two issues that one should address, mainly because we have a Minister who is presiding over a department that is in a shambles, in a complete state of chaos-a Minister who himself is scandal ridden. I believe that he reflects what is happening in his Department. Let me just suggest eight or nine of the matters that come to mind very readily. We have the totally unsatisfactory position that pertains with tens of thousands of patients in this country endeavouring to have elective surgery. That is a scandalous state of affairs. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I was just reflecting on a statement that the honourable member made when he said that the Minister was scandal ridden. It is a reflection on the Minister and he should withdraw it. Mr HODGES —Mr Deputy Speaker, if you want me to withdraw it, I will. Another example is the exploitation by some sections of the medical profession-I emphasise, some sections-of Medicare bulk billing. The Minister knows very well that that is costing the nation hundreds of millions of dollars, yet he encourages bulk billing. The expenditure blowout in Medicare is a scandal. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is bringing disrepute to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee by his manipulation of that Committee. The fact that this legislation contains provisions to amend the National Health Act in relation to prescription entitlement cards is also a scandal. I will point that out a little later on. Pharmpay, the advance payment system to pharmacists, is also a scandal and an outrage. The fast tracking of generic drugs for listing under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is also a scandalous state of affairs. The Minister stands condemned for what he and his Department have allowed to happen in this regard. The leaking of confidential computer data from his Department is a scandal and an outrage. More recently, in Brisbane, namely within the last couple of weeks, raids on Optical Prescriptions Spectacle Makers Industries Ltd by members of the Australian Federal Police under the direction of the Health Insurance Commission are also an outrage and a scandal that this Minister ought to take a deep interest in. I want to make a few comments in relation to Pharmpay. The Minister tells us in his second reading speech that clause 11 will provide for the Secretary of the Department of Health to make advance payments to pharmacists. I point out to the House that these advance payments have been made for the last two years. Dr Blewett —The last 10. Mr HODGES —In the last two years the Pharmpay method has been used illegally by the Minister's Department of Health. Dr Blewett —And you used it illegally-for 10 years you have been illegal. Mr HODGES —I am sorry, but for the last two years that we have had this system operating it has been illegal. It amazes me that a department that had 4,134 staff members as at 30 June 1986-free of the Health Insurance Commission staff who total about another 4,500 and 955 of whom are in the pharmaceutical benefits section, a section that has developed over 40 years of a scheme-can make so many blunders and illegal decisions in a particular area with a payout of some $700m to $800m a year. The Minister ought to be deeply concerned about the things that are going on within his Department. A legal opinion has been obtained and it has been decided on the advice of the Attorney-General's Department that there have been illegal payouts, so we will have an amendment to an Act. I would have thought that the Minister could have done a little better than that. If he needs to put the cleaners through the Department, he should have the intestinal fortitude to do that. It is an inefficient, bungling and excuse-ridden department. Repetition strain injury is being blamed for delays in the processing. I ask the Minister to look closely at this. I am talking about a system that has been operating for 40 years, a system that is not the making of the pharmacists of Australia, a system that is the making of governments of the past. Clause 5 of the Bill deals with prescription entitlement cards. This aspect of the National Health Act has been operating for four months. I warned the Minister in this House, when the matter was debated on 24 September, that many loopholes would develop in this system. He told us that 10,500 prescription entitlement cards were issued in Australia after four months. What will the position be after eight or nine months? I understand that far more entitlement cards have been issued than was ever anticipated by the Department. I understand that people are getting low-cost items recorded quickly-in other words, in two or three weeks or months-so that everything from thereon in will be obtainable by them at no charge. It is quite an easy and simple matter to achieve that; there is nothing illegal in it at all. Why does the Department suspect fraud at the moment? Why have pharmacists been asked, in contravention of the existing Act that the Government is now amending, to return prescription entitlement card application forms and all of the prescription record forms when they have not been specifically requested to do so in writing by the Secretary to the Department, as is contained in section 84e (6) of the current Act? That has been going on for four months in contravention of the Act. As I said earlier, it is an outrageous state of affairs-a department that is riddled with scandal, a department that cannot follow the Acts that it is supposed to administer. Today, four months later, this amending legislation is before the House. The Minister says that it will give the Department the capacity to audit the issue of entitlement cards in a more timely fashion. What lovely, flowery words to just cover up some problems. That is all it is. Of course there are problems with the system. There were always going to be major problems with the system; yet the Minister says that this legislation will benefit pharmacists. They do not have to keep the documentation for 12 months, as the Act states. They are not doing that anyway now because the Minister's Department has been requiring, coercing, or requesting them, whatever word we like to use, with prepaid stamped addressed envelopes to send in the information-in contravention of the Act because, to my knowledge, there has been nothing in writing from the Secretary to the Department, as contained in section 84e (6) of the current Act. No doubt we have a blowout in the system. I can imagine the paperwork. I do not know how the 955 members of staff of the pharmaceutical section of the Department will handle the situation when they get tens of thousands of envelopes coming in as we get past the sixth, seventh or eighth month of the financial year. I think the Department has a 14-month financial year in front of it with the introduction of this scheme. I suggest that the Minister look closely at the system and not rely on the minions in his Department, because they will let him down. They have let down previous Ministers. He should stand up to them and look carefully into the matter himself. I want to move to an issue that I have debated in this Parliament on a number of occasions with the Minister for Health-the 45 prescription items that he deleted from the list last November. I refer the Minister to his repeated statements that those drugs were removed on health or medical grounds because he is on the record so many times as using that specific terminology. In the Canberra Times, in answer to a letter mentioning a Dr David McNicol, who was the Acting President of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Medical Association, the Minister talked about the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and removing those drugs on health grounds. He also mentioned it in this chamber on 19 August in answer to a question from the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). The Minister stated: There are three points to be made: First of all the decision was made on health grounds on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee . . . In a letter in the latter part of last year he stated to me: I realise that some of the deleted medicines . . . most affected will be pensioner and concessional groups. Nevertheless, I have accepted the PBAC's recommendations, made on medical grounds, believing in addition that in the current economic climate the community as a whole can ill afford the situation . . . He also refers there to the economic climate. There are plenty of references to the fact that the PBAC recommended those deletions on health grounds. I turn the Minister back-because I obtained some documents under the Freedom of Information Act-to 1979-80 when the Minister for Health was the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). He wrote to the Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, who at that date was a Dr M. V. Clarke. At that stage the honourable member for Gwydir said to Dr Clarke that the Government was endeavouring to save $20m in the pharmaceutical benefits area. He stated: Accordingly it would be appreciated if the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee could provide appropriate advice so that the Government may give consideration as to which drugs might be deleted. It would greatly assist the Government if the Committee could provide a list of drugs and drug groups, rated in order of lowest priority for continued benefit listing, sufficient to enable the Government to make decisions regarding deletions to provide the required level of savings. That letter was written in August. Another letter from the honourable member for Gwydir of 30 August to the same chairman, Dr Clarke, states: In this latter regard I appreciate that the Committee may not wish to recommend specific items for deletion from the Schedule; however, as I mentioned in my letter of 21 August 1979, it would be of great assistance to the Government if the Committee would provide me with a list of drugs and drug groups rated in order of priority for continued benefit listing. This list need not be exhaustive, but should be of sufficient length to enable the Government to select from it enough items for deletion to provide savings in Government expenditure in the order of $20 million in a full year. The minutes of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee meeting of 7 September refer to the fact that the Government had made that request. The Committee's report, among other things, talked about the need for an adequate list of efficacious drugs and so on. Let me quote: As it is also the responsibility of the Committee to preserve an adequate list of efficacious drugs at reasonable cost, it should be made clear that these drugs are not recommended for delisting, but if the Government delists them it should announce that the delisting decision is that of the Government. Dr Howell, the then Director-General of Health, in a minute to the honourable member for Gwydir, the then Minister, referred to this fact and to the fact that some of the delistings may cause hardship to pensioners and disadvantaged non-pensioner groups. On the bottom of the minute he noted: I think that the delisting would be fraught with public peril . . . He stressed: The Committee has also stressed that if the Government delists these drugs it should announce that the delisting decision is that of the Government. That is a perfectly plain request by the PBAC which was again carried forward by the Director-General of Health, the equivalent of the Secretary to the Department today. The then Minister, the honourable member for Gwydir, wrote on the bottom: Please prepare a submission for Cabinet. I want to ask Cabinet to reconsider this earlier decision. Further, no delistings should occur before 1 April 1980. He also noted: In preparing the submission please advise which drugs are important to aged people. The honourable member for Gwydir was a compassionate and concerned Minister for Health. There is clear evidence that the PBAC was not going to be pushed around, and it was not pushed around because the government of the day made some of the deletions-not all of them-that were in the list. Let me turn the clock forward about six years to last year and the present Minister for Health. This is the position. This is what shows up through freedom of information. There was a letter from Dr Donovan, the first Assistant Secretary to the Department of Health, to Dr Grigor, the Chairman of the PBAC. In that letter Dr Donovan makes reference to section 101 (4). It refers to a legal opinion that was obtained from the Attorney-General's Department. Do not ask me why a legal opinion was obtained on this occasion; the Minister's Department never seems to bother. The legal opinion stated that the Minister had no right to delete or to add. All right, we accept that. Apparently at some stage an amendment to that section of the Act is to come forward. Why the Minister did not amend the Act at that time and make the deletions himself I will never know. That is best known to the Minister, but he ought to tell the Parliament and he ought to explain to the PBAC why he did not amend the Act at that particular time. I quote from the letter: It is therefore proposed to amend this section to permit the Minister to remove items from the benefit lists without prior agreement of the Committee. This letter makes it abundantly clear that the Minister wanted to effect the delistings to save expenditure. I have said in this Parliament and to the Minister that there is nothing wrong with that. It is just the devious way in which he went about it. Again the Minister was hiding behind the PBAC. All the Minister had to do was to make those amendments and delist the drugs he wanted to, and everything would have been in order. Previous Ministers have effected delistings, as I have said, albeit perhaps without being strictly legal, but the fact is that those delistings were done, and done in an honourable way. I turn to another letter, this one from the Minister to Dr Grigor. The Minister made two requests in this letter. The first request reads: I ask that at your June meeting you review some benefit items with a view to determining, on health grounds, whether their listing is justified. The Department will be preparing a submission to the Committee on this subject, which will include a list of items for review. Secondly, the Minister requests the Committee to look at a published statement of aims and guidelines. The final paragraph of the Minister's letter is interesting. It reads: While I hope that the Committee will commence revising its guidelines at the June meeting, I realise that this task may take some time. I would however request that you finalise your advice on grounds for listing at the June meeting. It is clear from this letter that the PBAC was being instructed to finalise the listings at the June meeting `on health grounds' from the list prepared by the Health Department. The other request in the letter was not terribly urgent, but the delistings were. The Minister wanted that made clear to the PBAC and, of course, the PBAC did his dirty work for him. I might add that some of the members of the PBAC were most unhappy with those delistings. Going a little further into the documents I have obtained, I will read from a letter from Dr Brian Cowling to Dr Grigor, the Chairman of the PBAC. It reads: One half day back in my practice makes me sure that the PBAC made a serious error in removing all mild analgesics-aspirin, paracetamol and combinations with 8 mgm of codeine phosphate from the list of benefits. That letter was circulated to the other PBAC members and, after that was done, Clark Massie, a member of the PBAC and a senior officer of the Minister's Department and a pharmacist by profession, wrote a note to Mr Threlfall on the bottom of the letter. It said: I spoke with Dr Grigor this morning-I reaffirmed my decision, taken at PBAC, that the original vote of 7-2 put in place a recommendation to delete the said items. In the absence of new evidence I saw no reason to consider the matter again. Another note from Mr Massie, this one to the Minister, dated 27 June 1986 clearly illustrates the unease of the PBAC members. In this particular minute he says: Even after the meeting there have been further expressions of concern and discussion between members. That is, members of the PBAC. Let me top all this off for the Minister. There is a note to the Minister from Dr Donovan of either 1 July 1986 or 3 July 1986-there are two dates on this-and the Minister has noted and signed the letter. The final paragraph of this minute to the Minister says: You might also like to write to the Chairman of the PBAC along the lines of the attached. The Committee has really gone out of its way to help in a difficult financial situation. What a revelation this is. That is beautiful stuff, brilliant stuff-quite conclusive proof that the Minister's medical grounds and health grounds so often stated are just a lot of hogwash. The Minister wanted the decision and he bullied and coerced the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee into making that decision-a reputable body in itself that the Minister has brought into disrepute. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(4.36) —We now have two National parties in this House and two Liberal parties and, in the confusion, two Liberal views on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The attacks by the two honourable members opposite, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges), have one thing in common in respect of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. They are both not very constructive. The honourable member for Barker has been claiming credit for the safety net provisions that have been put into the Government's legislation which we are now discussing-the National Health Amendment Bill-and acknowledging that the scheme is working quite well and even saying that it was his idea. Then we just had the honourable member for Petrie telling us that the system is a nightmare. The Opposition is absolutely and completely divided. One could almost divide the Opposition into the number of people that exist in it. The two honourable members have told us that there nothing wrong with removing items from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme to save expenditure; yet they-particularly the honourable member for Petrie who has just spoken-have criticised the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for doing just that. I am amazed that a member of this House would think that the Minister does not take into account the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, a committee of doctors and pharmacists which considers whether items should or should not be on the national health scheme, whether in the context of reducing expenditure or of putting other items on the list and keeping expenditure the same, as I believe happened in this case. I propose to touch on this matter again later in my speech, because it touches on what the whole philosophy of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme should be. The attack on the scheme by the honourable member for Barker listed, for example, fast delivery of details of the new scheme to pharmacists. It was not based on any argument that the scheme was not working, because it patently is working. It was not based on any argument that the scheme was unfair. It patently is fair, allowing people with chronic illnesses throughout Australia-illnesses for which they can find no cure-to obtain free medication after 25 prescriptions have been dispensed in any one year. The Opposition's criticism was not based on any argument that the scheme was not working. It patently is working with both pharmacists and the patients co-operating. The Opposition's attack was based on quick delivery of data to pharmacists before the scheme commenced. It was based on criticisms of the program which was set up under the Fraser-Howard Budgets. Pharmpay, the system of payment to pharmacists, was a creature of the Fraser-Howard years; yet today we see the spokesperson for health matters and the honourable member for Petrie disparaging it. I might say that in South Australia there is a maximum delay in payment of 34 days under Pharmpay at the moment. Honourable members opposite based their attack on testing systems for medications which operated under their schemes. I commend the Minister for Health for now trying to upgrade the system to improve the testing procedure. Honourable members opposite were in office for 30 years. Why did they not do something about the system of payment to pharmacists? Why did they not do something about drug evaluation? The criticisms of honourable members opposite of these inheritances of previous governments contrasts with their silence on how well the new scheme is working. That it is working well has been attested to by a medical practitioner, Dr Steve Flecknoe-Brown of Middle Cove, who sums up the view that the pharmaceutical benefits scheme got away from its original intent to supply essential medication. I quote from his Letter to the Editor published in Medical Practice of December 1986-January 1987. He wrote: I have never been an apologist for the points of view of the present Federal Government and Health Minister, but I do perhaps know a little more about the background of the new PBS than most, and against this background, the scheme looks very sensible to me . . . It is clear now that the Department of Health has taken the decision that the original intent of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will be further upheld. Originally, medications which we now take for granted, (e.g. antibiotics) were very expensive and yet very necessary to the health of the community. Thus, a community underwriting scheme was devised and this was called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Twenty years later, most of the `old biologicals' are now relatively cheap and affordable on a cash basis, and so the public underwriting scheme is no longer needed for these substances. On the other hand, sophisticated new drugs, including the `new biologicals', are several orders of magnitude more expensive and again a scheme of public underwriting of the cost of these substances would seem desirable. Whilst I have never argued that such public underwriting should be the responsibility of government, clearly this government considers that it is. I would personally have preferred to see the private health funds take the initiative when it was available several years ago, but now the opportunity has gone. As a result therefore, the new anti-cancer drugs, human recombinant insulin and several other expensive and innovative medications- may I say that they came on to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme at approximately the same time as the items taken off by the honourable member for Petrie; they are very important drugs- are now available on a $10.00 prescription (free for pensioners). In a move showing extraordinary responsibility and restraint, the Department of Health decided that it had to meet its budgetary obligations, and so something had to be dropped from the . . . Scheme. The $1.00 or $2.00 cost of a packet of aspirin or paracetamol is unlikely to make a significant impact on the individual pensioner, whose pension is, after all indexed to take into account such items as the cost of beer and cigarettes. Thus, I find myself supporting the principle of the `new' Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, in that it is once again doing what the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme was originally designed to do. People with chronic illnesses, families with young children and others who use large numbers of prescription drugs have benefited from the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme. From 1 November last year no individual or family has had to pay for more than 25 pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescriptions in any calendar year. Already, as at 17 March 1987, 53,000 people-possibly 26,000 families-have been covered by that new safety net provision introduced by this Government. After purchasing their first 25 items, both general and concessional patients receive all future pharmaceutical benefit items free for the remainder of that year. The safety net provision was a long overdue reform which will increase protection for high volume users of drugs who previously could face massive bills. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Barker recognised that point. I deplore the fact that the honourable member for Petrie did not. The new scheme was developed by the Government through consultation and close co- operation with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. That co-operation was obviously essential because pharmacists are assisting in its operation by issuing entitlement cards and they are recording pharmaceutical purchases. I believe that the honourable member for Petrie did the Pharmacy Guild and pharmacists in general a disservice by claiming that the scheme is not working. They were heavily involved in discussions. I was involved in discussions, as a member of the relevant committee and convenor of the working group on the Industries Assistance Commission report on pharmaceutical products. I worked with them constantly. Mr Blanchard —A very good chairman, too. Mr SNOW —I thank my colleague for his compliment. When the matter was introduced the Minister for Health said that it was not anticipated that the administrative work load on individual pharmacists would be significant. I believe that that has proven to be the case. Agreement had been reached on payments to pharmacists for their role in the scheme. The Minister, the Department and the Pharmacy Guild are continuing to monitor the impact of the new scheme on the community to maximise its effectiveness and to ensure that there are no abuses of the new arrangements. That is why we are doing what we are doing today. It is part of that monitoring. I believe that the alternative being offered by the Opposition as its health policy is little more than a rehash of the 1976 Fraser scheme which really began the dismantling of Medibank. The failure of that scheme was demonstrated by the fact that it lasted only two years and it was followed by four more messy and more confusing health schemes. A decade later, it is obvious that the Opposition has not learned anything from its past mistakes. In fact, not long before we came to government, the previous Government introduced a complex form. The honourable member for Petrie talked about the shambles under the present system. Why did he not tell us about the shambles of the four, five or six health schemes under the Fraser-Howard Budgets? Why did he not tell us about the shambles of six years of illegal payments to pharmacists under the previous Government, which is being rectified by this legislation? Why did he not tell us about the shambles of the long-winded statement that had to be signed by patients under the last Carlton-inspired adjustments to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme under the previous Fraser-Howard Government? It is obvious that the Opposition has learned nothing from its mistakes. I quote from the November 1986 editorial of the Australian Journal of Pharmacy: As pharmacy has demonstrated before in the past decade, its strategic position, with members evenly spread geographically in shopping centres throughout the nation, makes its members a potentially formidable lobby. What Mr Hodges has overlooked-- that is, the honourable member for Petrie, who spoke before me- is that when his party was in power during the Fraser Government years, the Guild twice found itself in total confrontation with the government-situations in which trust and communication broke down completely. Another part of the editorial states: It is not even certain that Mr Porter would become Health Minister. Certainly, it is not certain in the present leadership struggle. It continues: After all, the Guild's first confrontation with the Fraser Government was after Mr Ralph Hunt, now deputy leader of the National Party, had been appointed Health Minister instead of the previous so-called `shadow Minister'. Mr Hunt lost that confrontation. After saying that he would not give up his Ministerial prerogative (to unilaterally determine the level of pharmacists' NHS dispensing fees), he capitulated under threat of a Guild High Court writ. He appointed an independent chairman to the then existing fees negotiation committee. . . . The goodwill that initially created was undermined, however, when the Fraser Government (with Mr Carlton as Health Minister) outrageously suspended the Tribunal's operations, making a mockery of its statutory basis, during the 1982-83 wage freeze. That government ignored the fact that pharmacists are not members of the public service-rather, they dispense NHS scripts by agreement with the government. With this historical background, it can be seen why the Guild is pleased with its new agreement with the federal government, despite the drawbacks to which it has freely admitted, and on which critics have pounced. I conclude by saying that over the past 38 years, since the first Menzies Government came to power, we have had approximately 7 years of Labor government. I believe that the pharmacy industry has had good and reasonable relations with those Federal Labor governments. When Dr Everingham was Minister for Health, good relations were developed. I believe that they have deepened with the present Minister for Health. Certainly, there are strong criticisms by the Pharmacy Guild-important criticisms which ought to be listened to. As well, there has been constant contact between the Guild and the Government at both a policy making and a ministerial level. I have been pleased to have been involved in those contacts with the pharmacy profession and with other professions, including the veterinary and optometry professions, in developing policies which result from consultation. After all, that was part of the reason for this Government coming into power. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill. (Quorum formed) Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(4.54) —It does not matter when this Government puts on a debate on health-I am ready. When I came to this place 20 years ago the nation's Budget was $6 billion and the average wage earned by the people of Australia was $60. Since then the average wage has risen seven times, but the Budget has gone up 12 times. That explains in a very simple way why people are feeling the impact of taxation to the extent that they are. I relate this to the present Government's expenditure on health care. In the mid 1970s during the Whitlam era we had the first taste of socialised medicine. I recall the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), as Minister for Health at that time, introducing a national health scheme. Government members interjecting- Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is about time Labor members listened to an explanation of why this country is going down the drain, instead of sitting opposite in little groups. Since the present Government came to power expenditure on medical services and benefits has risen from $2.5 billion in 1984-85 to almost $3.5 billion in current year projections-that is, about another billion dollars that must be met from taxpayers' pockets. One of the things that the Australian Labor Party fails to understand is that every time it gives something away on the pretence of equalising opportunities for people, it is those very same people who end up paying for it. Let me give another example of the way in which health costs have rocketed since Medicare came into being. The average fee for basic hospital cover across all States in regard to all private health funds, including Medibank was $6.06 a week. That is what a family needed to pay over and above Medicare for basic hospital cover. In the period of just three years that figure has risen by over 40 per cent to $8.51. Despite the huge increase in that period, more Australians than ever before are opting to take private health cover. They are seeing for themselves, particularly in the southern States, that if they take ill, they will have to wait many months before they get a hospital bed for elective surgery. By the time they get to hospital, instead of having one or two ailments they will have three or four. When people carry an ailment as long as a socialised health system requires them to do, illness and problems are compounded. The Bureau of Statistics, one of the most wonderful organisations in the country, has provided figures showing that 46 per cent of families on incomes of less than $126 a week are paying for private health insurance. Despite the fact that their incomes are less than $126 a week, they are prepared to pay out $8.50 a week to ensure that they do not have to join queues for hospital beds. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has not satisfactorily explained in this Parliament, in Question Time or in the many debates in the last year, why, if the health system is so marvellous, in the southern States there are queues of 100,000 people waiting to get into hospitals, waiting for elective surgery. The Minister has never explained that. He has given excuses, but they do not remove the queues which grow longer every year. I draw attention to the case of a Western Australian, Garry Caple of Coolbellup. Mrs Kelly —Why don't you look after your own electorate? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I remind the honourable member for Canberra that I come from Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Moreton to address his comments through the Chair and to ignore interjections. Mr DONALD CAMERON —They are a very lively audience, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, I prefer to direct my remarks to you. Garry Caple has been waiting eight months for surgery for the removal of kidney stones. I do not know whether the Minister knows Garry Caple, but I remind him that there are 100,000 such people out there-people not necessarily with kidney stone problems but waiting for the opportunity to get into hospital to have operations. The Minister lulls the nation into a feeling of false security by telling people that socialised medicine is the panacea for all illnesses, telling them: `We will look after you'. But typically, as with all socialist schemes, it is crumbling and people are not getting the care that the Government promised them in 1983 and again in 1984. Remember 1984-the promise in that election campaign that there would not be an increase in the Medicare levy, just as there was a promise in 1983 that there would be no capital gains tax. The Government has increased the levy from one per cent to 1 1/4 per cent, but even so it has to put its hand into the coffers for some $2,000m just to top up the costs of meeting the expenses of running socialised medicine. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Australian Labor Party, after the failure of the mid-1970s, has indulged in the extravagance of socialised medicine again. I do not believe that because something is old it is necessarily good. I do not mind facing change or even looking at pre-existing schemes. But I point out to the Minister for Health that the scheme that was in place in this country in the late 1960s and the early 1970s was virtually the best health scheme this country has seen-- Mrs Kelly —Come on! Old men with old ideas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canberra will cease interjecting. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member says: `Old men with old ideas'. It is a pity that she is so young that she cannot recall that time and that she has so little interest in history that she is not prepared to go back and look at the systems which existed in those days and which really worked. We had 89 per cent of Australians adequately covered. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) used to campaign on the basis that 11 per cent of Australians were not covered. But 8 per cent of the uncovered people came from Queensland where we had a free hospital scheme and the other 3 per cent were people who never stayed very long in the same place; they wandered about. Most Australians had a form of cover but when this Government came into office it ended up tipping out the baby when it emptied the bathwater. The shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), will verify that what I am about to say is correct-that when our policy is revealed it will show that bulk billing, except for the poor and disadvantaged, is on its way out. We have seen the emergence of Edelsten-type clinics-and I am not passing views on the ethics or otherwise of such clinics at this point-based on the premise that if people go through their doors they will find velvet lined walls, grand pianos in the corner and mirrors on the ceiling. They are told that they will be looked after and they are made to feel welcome. They are told that they will not have to pay a cent because the clinic will bulk bill the Government. People like those circumstances, they like such surroundings. Therefore, if they get a double splinter in their finger, instead of reaching for a needle, they go to the doctor and let him pull it out. Why? Because `it ain't going to cost them anything'. This is the great weakness of the bulk billing system. The moment that people lose a vested financial interest in making a judgment on the necessity to go to a doctor, many in the community will opt for going to the doctor for any ailment, no matter how minor it might be. This is a very wide-ranging debate and I have listened to a number of earlier speakers. Now that the Minister for Health is at the table I take this opportunity to raise another matter. In my city of Brisbane and my electorate of Moreton I am aware of hundreds and hundreds of elderly people who are trying to gain admission to nursing homes. Yet I have learned in recent days that the Government has decided that the city of Brisbane has too many nursing home beds and it is arranging the transfer of those beds out of the city to the outskirts of Brisbane. The Government is compounding the current problems. I am glad the Minister is taking notes; I hope that he will respond to these concerns at a later stage. With all my heart I say to the Minister that when one goes to a nursing home one can see how the aged are more frail than they used to be. If the Minister is saying that his goal is that elderly people must stay longer at home before they can go into a nursing home, he is certainly achieving that because the waiting period for admission is now longer than it has ever been. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have given a fair amount of latitude in the debate on this Bill, but at the moment the honourable member is not even talking about anything in the Bill. Given that this legislation is about pharmaceuticals, I ask the honourable member not just to return to the Bill but to begin making relevant comments about it. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I can do that very easily, but I draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the fact that this is a health-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I also ask the honourable member not to argue with the Chair and to take heed of what the Chair says. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are in control and I acknowledge the request that you have made. This Bill refers to Medicare and there was a precedent today for discussing matters such as pathology treatment and the Government's decision some months ago to wipe off or to reduce by some 25 per cent the payments that certain services would attract. I draw the Minister's attention to an article which appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail on Tuesday, 17 March, in which a spokesperson for one of the major pathology laboratories in Queensland warned that in Queensland the services which are being provided to country people are being severely reduced. Although I represent a metropolitan seat, I cannot let this opportunity pass without suggesting that the Minister has perhaps been over-severe. This group of pathologists has already dismissed 130 persons from its staff because of the reduced income resulting from the cuts that the Minister has brought about, and it is now being forced to look at a further reduction of services. Can the Minister tell whether he has any plans in this regard? I acknowledge that in some areas of pathology there were people with their hands in the till but I do not believe that that was the case in Queensland. Has the Minister any thoughts of a review? Now that his reductions are in place does he intend to look again and see whether he has overdone it? I suggest that he should. While I am talking about pathology, I have another matter which should be raised here. There is one weakness in the Medicare or health fund system in that if someone goes into hospital and has an intravenous set-up placed in his body, if a doctor actually places the needle in that person the doctor is entitled to charge $20. The Government has decreed that, if a nurse places that needle in the person's body, the refund which a private health fund would be entitled to give is not applicable. It applies only if the doctor performs the task. We are in a bit of a quandary here. I might add that if a person goes to hospital after hours, the doctor is entitled to charge a late fee or an out-of-hours fee. By standing to one side and doing nothing about this, the Minister is causing a situation in which, if a person is in hospital and a doctor comes in and carries out the service, the patient gets almost all the money back. However if that patient is unlucky enough to have a nurse, even representing the doctor, conduct that service-and I am not reflecting on the ability of such a person to perform that service-he or she gets wiped by the health fund. I am saying to the Minister for Health that the Government has to acknowledge that, if a nurse can carry out this procedure and does so instead of the doctor, that person should be entitled to a refund. Alternatively, it might be even smarter if the Government bit the bullet and said to doctors: `The fee structure has been set in return for a service that you provide, and if doctors are supposed to do it and don't we will outlaw your use of nurses or restructure the fee and reduce it dramatically'. The constituent who came to me is faced with an account of some $30, after paying out a lot more money because of the shortfall on services, just because the nurse came in on the Saturday afternoon instead of the doctor. Yet the Government closes its mind to it. It has been explained to me that in the Health Insurance Commission the view is that it is far better that the professionalism of doctors not be undermined by recognising the service being provided by a mere nurse. My view, I repeat, is that if a nurse can do it, or does it, why do we have to pay such a high fee to acknowledge that the doctor does it if, most of the time, he is relying on the services of a nurse? I conclude, as I commenced, in underlining the fact that one of the great tragedies of this nation is runaway costs. They are always associated with socialised medicine. The rest of the world is in the midst of walking away from socialised medicine. But what does Australia do? Being removed from the rest of the world is perhaps an excuse, but people travel and see, and the lessons of contemporary history are there. We go down the same path which others have tried and which has failed. When we have a return of a Liberal-National Party government after the next election-- Mr Blanchard —Ha, ha! Mr DONALD CAMERON —The form of socialised health will go out the door. The honourable member for Moore need not laugh because the next election will most surely ensure that his Government is put out of office for the reason that I outlined at the beginning. As I said, in Australia 20 years ago we had a Budget of $6 billion but today we have a Budget of more than $72 billion. That has gone up twelve-fold in 20 years, yet salaries have gone up only sevenfold. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(5.14) —I was absolutely fascinated by the speech of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), not by any comments that he made about the National Health Amendment Bill, because he really did not get on to that at all, but rather by the comments he made which obviously give us some indication of the future policy of the Opposition in relation to health matters. Mr Porter —Don't you worry about that. Mrs KELLY —I think the people of Australia will be a bit worried about that, particularly as the Opposition has revealed to them all its arm's length servicing of the patients. The honourable member for Moreton referred to the way in which nurses would have to take on the role of doctors in hospitals. I suppose that he would have the doctors working from their yachts on the Brisbane River and getting the nurses to do the work. Who would we pay? Would we pay the nurse or the doctor? It will be fascinating to see the Opposition's policies, if ever they emerge. I have listened to the contributions by the honourable member for Moreton and other speakers. I have seen crocodile tears being shed for those people who are waiting for elective surgery. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are waiting for elective surgery. I particularly have sympathy for people waiting for elective surgery in this city. Why is that? Because the doctors are on strike here. They refuse to service Medicare patients. Why? Because the Government has offered them only a 21.5 per cent increase in their fees. Is that not dreadful? I would like any member of this House or any member of the community to indicate that he or she has received a 21 per cent increase in income in the last few years. No one in this House has, and very few people in my electorate or the electorates of other members of this House have. That is not good enough for the doctors in Canberra. No, they have to demand more. First of all, we negotiated with them on a fee for service basis. Why is that? It is because that is what they said they always wanted. When they did not get what they wanted there they said: `All that negotiation is over. That is not good enough for us. The 21.5 per cent is not good enough for us. We want new negotiations, this time on a sessional basis'. Then they dictate their own terms in relation to that. This Government will not stand for that. The people caught in the middle of this are Medicare patients who have been admitted to hospitals. I believe a lot of doctors in Canberra are responsible, and they say that they will service people in emergencies. I hope that we have a very broad definition of emergencies. Regardless of that, this situation cannot continue because in Canberra over 50 per cent of all patients admitted to hospital are Medicare patients. Until those doctors fulfil their obligations to those patients the lives of those people are at risk. No trade union in this country has ever put the lives of people at risk as the doctors in Canberra are doing at this very minute. At this minute people are being admitted to hospitals who are not being serviced because the doctors are on strike, because they refuse to take a 21.5 per cent increase. We cannot even sit down and discuss the issue with them. They say: `No, a 21 per cent increase is not good enough'. I am sorry to show emotion in this issue, but people's lives are at risk. My constituents' lives are at risk. It is a very emotional issue to me and to the people whom I represent. Mr Porter —What about those who can't get into hospitals? Mr White —What about the others who can't get in at all? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! If all honourable members interject at once nobody can be heard. I think it is better to keep a little decorum. Mrs KELLY —In light of the message from the Deputy Speaker, I would like to make some comments now in relation to the Bill. I would like to explain some of the misunderstandings-I think some of the deliberate misunderstandings-about this Bill. This is really only a minor Bill, but we would never believe that from the debate going on today. Mr Porter —It is a major issue. Mrs KELLY —It is true; it is a major issue, and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is a major issue. It also takes a great deal of taxpayers' money. The interesting thing is that the costs that we are talking about in relation to this scheme are $687m this year; so it is a lot of money. It is important that we understand the nature of the scheme and the effects that these amendments would have. There has been considerable discussion in this debate about the role that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) takes. Let us make very clear who decides what items are and what items are not covered by the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Basically that decision is not made by the Minister for Health. It is made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. That consists of nine members, six of whom, by the way, are nominated by the Australian Medical Association. They do not make the decisions on financial grounds; they make them on medical grounds. They are not influenced by the Minister at all in relation to this. It is true that some drugs have recently been deleted from the list, but it is also true that some have been added. Since March 1983 over 100 new drugs have been added and 70 have been removed. Now there are about 2,000 formulations on the list. There has been enormous growth in the use of these drugs, particularly in the pension area. Last year the growth was more than 20 per cent. I would like to draw attention to one fact that is very interesting and bears consideration-probably nothing more than that at this stage. However, it is something that we as members of the Parliament should take into consideration. Pensioners in Australia consume at least twice as many drugs per capita as their counterparts in the United States of America. I do not know why that is the case. We cannot blame the pensioners. They do not even know what most of the drugs are. They just go along, tell the doctor their symptoms and get a whole pile of drugs. So we cannot blame them. We cannot blame the demographics. There is no doubt that our population is aging, but so too is the American population. However, our population is not aging so quickly that we get a 20 per cent increase in one year. There is no particular reason why our pensioners should be less healthy than American pensioners or why our pensioners were less healthy last year than they were the year before. I think all members of the community, whether they be the doctors prescribing the drugs or the patients, have to be very responsible in looking at these drugs because they cost a lot of money and someone has to pay for them. The taxpayers, the Government, pay for these 2,000 items. This is why it is absolutely critical and essential that only critical drugs be placed on the free list of items which are made freely available to pensioners and are subsidised in respect of the rest of the community. It is obvious that as developments occur in technology and science it is important that the list adjusts to changing circumstances. Various examples have been given of new drugs and experimental drugs that come on to the market. These drugs cost a lot of money-some cost $40 or $50. Such drugs are subsidised. But other drugs are now available over the counter very cheaply. One can go to one's local pharmacist-I would prefer that one did not go into Woolworths, and I will refer to that later-and buy something like paracetamol for about $2. But what would it cost the Government to provide that drug to the pensioner for nothing? It would cost the Government much more. First of all, that drug would have to be prescribed by a doctor. Therefore, the Government would have to subsidise that medical consultation which would cost $13.30. Then when the prescription is taken to the pharmacist, the Government would pay a dispensary fee of $2.40. The cost of the drug itself is about $1.70 to the Government. So it would cost taxpayers, who ultimately pay the bill through the Government, over $17 for something that one could get across the counter at one's pharmacy for $2. So at times it is necessary to readjust the scale and that is what is being done through the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I also want to refer briefly to the safety net provisions in this legislation. I think it is important that we congratulate the Government on this safety net scheme. As the mother of a couple of children I can tell honourable members that when one has a sick child one's other children also get sick very quickly and it is very easy to build up 25 scripts. I think it is important that we have this safety net provision. I understand that as of 17 March about 53,000 people are covered by the safety net provisions. Mr Reith —What about a safety net for the pensioners who cannot get into hospital? Mrs KELLY —The truth of the matter is that there is a big safety net in this proposal because the pensioners of Australia can get over 2,000 prescription items free. What is the Opposition's policy? What is it going to do about it? We have not heard what the policy of honourable members opposite is. They get up and condemn our legislation. But I would like to know what they are going to do. How are they going to pay for some of their crazy policies? God help the pensioners of Australia if the Opposition ever gets into government. At this stage I would like to make reference to some other points, particularly those raised by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) about the cost of Medicare. I have always taken a great interest in the cost of government administration. The Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, made a report on pathology. We closely examined and made a lot of recommendations about the administration of health, particularly the new Medicare administrative arrangements. I need to make some points because a lot of untruths have been issued in this debate. First of all, let us have a look at the figures. Medicare is a very efficient system. The average claim processing time is three days for cheques and direct billed claims. Doctors who direct bill often receive their payments within a week of making their claim. This reduction in administration and fast cash flow is no doubt a major reason why 51 per cent of all medical services are being directly billed, thereby allowing patients to receive their medical services at no direct cost. In Canberra about 50 per cent of people are Medicare patients. I do not have all the details of the number of people who are directly billed, but it is important that the doctors receive their payments very quickly and efficiently. There is a huge network of 264 Medicare branches. I inform the Minister for Health, who is in the chamber, that although I have not managed to get the few more branches in my electorate that I have asked for, I am still working on it. Obviously this is a vastly more superior system than having a huge number of private funds. Mr Porter —Why? Mrs KELLY —Because it is more efficient. There are economics of scale. Mr Porter —It is not. Mrs KELLY —Of course it is. We have got the facts, we know. Mr Porter —Have a look at their costs. Mrs KELLY —Prior to the introduction of Medicare, 10 per cent of the total medical benefits bill was spent on administration costs. Under Medicare those costs have been halved to only 4.6 per cent. In the last financial year, the administration and processing of Medicare claims through the Health Insurance Commission cost $123m. If the previous system, of which the honourable member for Barker is so proud, had continued, administrative costs in the last financial year would have been about $250m. That point needs to be made. The overheads are not very substantial. In fact, there has been a reduction. There are great economies of scale in this very efficient Medicare system because it delivers a quick service both to the patients in terms of bulk billing and to the doctors who we paid after a turnaround time of about a week. It is important that these issues be brought to the fore. Finally, I would like to congratulate the Minister for his consultation with the pharmacists in the build-up of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Before I conclude, I would like to give a special note of thanks to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes). A number of pharmacists who came to see me were very concerned about proposals they had read about in the newspaper that there were going to be amendments to the local ordinance which would allow pharmacies to operate in big supermarket chains. I totally oppose that proposal and I told the pharmacists that when they came to see me. I then wrote to the Minister for Territories to ask him for his view and whether he could give me any guarantee that the pharmacy ordinance would not be amended to allow this to happen. He said: It would seem to me inappropriate for Territory's legislation to be amended to allow pharmacies to be owned and operated by the retail supermarket chains. Mr Porter —Will you table the letter. Mrs KELLY —I am sure that all of my pharmacists are very pleased about this view. It is not necessary to table it as I have sent it to every pharmacist in the Australian Capital Territory. On behalf of all of them I would like to thank the Minister for his reassurance. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.29) —That was an interesting contribution from the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly). The honourable member kept talking about Medicare but she would not talk about the hospital queues. We are told that Medicare is a great system for all Australians. In 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: `We are going to give you the best medical and hospital system in the world'. The honourable member for Canberra will not talk about the hospital queues in Australia because this problem is a massive embarrassment and a massive indictment of Medicare. Those are the facts. We have just had a classic example of a Labor member, a member of the Government, skirting around what all Australians are concerned about, and that is the right to go into hospital and to have hospital treatment as and when it is required. The honourable member also talked about costs. I have heard some baloney in this place but that really took the cake. I just ask ordinary Australians to ask themselves: Why did the Government jack-up the levy last year by 25 per cent? The Government jacked it up because that is just one symptom of the Medicare system and its costs running out of control. The amendments in the legislation deal with a number of matters, including some changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Whilst the Opposition is not opposing these provisions I want to make it clear that, when amending the National Health Act, I think we ought to be addressing some of the major issues, the relevance particularly to this legislation being that the changes proposed to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme introduced last year were aimed at saving costs which have been out of control. The amendments today will tidy up some of those changes which, as I have said, were introduced last year. Whilst the Government portrays health care as being free, the reality is that the health bill in Australia is massive. The Budget estimate for expenditure on pharmaceuticals in 1986-87 is $787m. The current arrangements are that drugs on the PBS list are supplied to the general public at a cost of up to $10 per item. It used to be $5 per item before 1 November 1986. The Government likes to talk about price control yet we have the Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is not even allowed to answer questions in the House. The Government talks about prices but here is a massive increase from $5 to $10 courtesy of this Government. Health card holders, including the unemployed, low-income families, social security pensioners and veterans' affairs service pensioners and their dependants who do not hold pensioner health benefits cards, have a concessional rate of $2.50 per prescription which is up 25 per cent-another price rise for this Government that claims to be concerned about price increases in the community. These rates are also available to pensioner health benefit and sickness beneficiary card holders and their dependants at no cost, and to individuals and families which use more than 25 prescriptions per annum at no cost over and above their contribution to the cost of the first 25 prescriptions, which is the safety net scheme we are talking about. The Commonwealth also meets the full cost of items on the PBS list and the repatriation scheme of pharmaceutical benefits for veterans with war-caused disabilities and their dependants. Lastly, it applies to war widows and their dependants at no cost. Of course, prior to November 1986 those people had access to the repatriation schedule but now they are restricted to the PBS list only, as are holders of pensioner health benefit cards. Clause 3 of the National Health Amendment Bill amends the definition of `basic private table' so that pathology services performed after a patient has been discharged from a hospital or day hospital will be deemed to have been rendered whilst the patient was still an in-patient. Whilst I do not oppose that provision I would have to say that many people in my electorate are more worried about getting a bed than about the financial arrangements once they leave. The hospital system in this country is in a complete mess. We just heard the honourable member for Canberra, in a typical Government member's response to an issue such as this, claiming and portraying the Australian Labor Party as the sole repository of compassion for the disadvantaged, when those are the very people for whom the Medicare scheme was introduced. Those are the very people who are at the end of the ever-growing queues waiting for entry into our hospital system. Tom Roper, a former Victorian Minister for Health, said in 1982 when he took over health responsibility in my State of Victoria: `We have the best system in the world'. We could not say that today. As I said a minute ago, the Prime Minister said that Medicare was `the best health care system Australia had ever seen'. What a sick joke that is now! The queues around Australia contain about 100,000 people and, in my State of Victoria, about 35,000 people. What does Medicare give to people waiting in those queues? It does not give them access to a hospital; it gives them a number-No. 35,001 or No. 35,002. That is what Medicare gives the people. If people need a hip replacement there is no prospect of getting in. I had a constituent in to see me the other day. What are people such as myself, the local member on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, supposed to say to a 76-year-old man who comes in, who has had a good work history in this country? In fact, he worked for the Department of Housing and Construction for many years. I understand that he did a good job there and he has a good reputation in the local community. He came in to see me and said: `I am in pain. I am increasingly putting more weight on my right leg because my left leg needs a hip replacement, but as I put more weight on my right leg that starts to go as well'. He said: `I have been to see my local doctor and he says that there is nothing that can be done. All he could suggest was for me to go and talk to the local member of parliament'. Doctors are saying: `The only way you will get into the hospital is if you yell and scream louder than the other bloke down the road who needs a hip replacement'. That is where we are up to. Medicare says to people who require hospital treatment urgently: `If you want to get into hospital you have to scramble your way past all the other people in the queue'. The 35,000 people who are waiting in queues is not just a figure; it is real people. I can tell the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) that these people are in my office on a regular basis. The Minister has said, as the Government has said from time to time on all these major issues: `It is not our fault. It is probably the fault of the last Government or it is some overseas condition or something'. There is always some factor which is beyond the Government's control. At some stage, not for the sake of the Opposition that wants to make a point or for the sake of any vested interest but for the sake of those people who really have a need for a hospital bed, I just hope that the Government will just stop worrying for once about scoring political points and ask itself what is going on in the system; it should have a look at Medicare. The Government is a fraud. It tells people that health care is free, which is just not true. It is not just me or members of the Opposition saying that. Many notable persons who have much experience and knowledge in the medical field are also saying that. Let me quote Professor Penington, a person who has been used by governments on a number of occasions to provide them with advice on medical matters. In April 1986 he described Medicare as `an open-ended cheque for 85 per cent of the cost'. He also said: A fee for service system in which supply-side' controls have been virtually abandoned is, in my view, unworkable . . . He went on to say: and it represents a bottomless pit into which unlimited moneys could be poured. That is a damning indictment of Medicare! Professor Penington is not alone. Let me quote from a booklet issued as a community service by the National Association of Medical Specialists. Let me quote what the booklet states on its introductory page: The major problem with universal health care in Australia is undoubtedly the escalating cost to the public purse. Quite apart from influences of inflation and CPI on the prices of materials, services and equipment, overall costs have increased dramatically over the past ten years-notwithstanding efforts by successive Governments to contain them. We believe that the chief contributing factor to the `blow-out' of costs is a levy on taxable income of a mere 1 1/4 per cent and the `I'm going to get my levy's worth' attitude of the public-fostered by the availability of bulk-billing. It goes on: It must surely be obvious to politicians of all persuasions that human nature cannot be changed by legislation, and we would postulate that if there is a minimal, or zero patient moiety payable for health care at the point of service, then there is no personal responsibility devolving upon the consumers. This concept, known technically as `moral hazard', has been well documented. The diminution of over-utilisation by increasing the coinsurance rate (`gap') has been calculated. That summarises the sorts of fundamental problems that we have with this Medicare system. The problems of Medicare are absolutely everywhere. In my home State of Victoria beds are being closed. How does one explain that to somebody who comes into the office when all that person knows is that he has been waiting for 18 months in a hospital queue and no-one can tell him when he will have his hip replacement done? How does one explain that in Victoria beds are being closed? I am told that an average of 1,500 beds per annum-one in 10 beds-were closed in Victoria in the last year. There has been a massive drop in the number of people who are privately insured. That means that additional funding for medical and hospital services is being focused on a government that increasingly is strapped for funds. There have been massive cost increases. Effectively, people are being required to pay more. Many people are prepared to pay more if they are getting value for the dollar but they are not getting that value because they are paying more and getting less. Many people do not just pay once. Effectively, they pay twice. Particularly in regard to hospital cover, as they see it they pay once with their levy and, for those who can afford it-and it is no consolation to those who cannot, the ones that Labor claims particularly to represent-they need to pay a second time. I have talked about the growing queues. There is also the matter of the growth in entrepreneurial medicine. What has bulk billing done to medicine? It has encouraged the so-called entrepreneurial practitioners. Some doctors are doing very well because there is always a minority-it is a small number, a few apples in the barrel that are not what they should be-that simply takes advantage of Medicare and rips into us taxpayers. The pressure on public hospital resources is well documented. To give an example of the utilisation of resources-again just looking at the Victorian situation, the Government there has not exactly been doing what it could to encourage the most efficient allocation of resources-we had a case last year of the Victorian Government requiring hospitals to have their linen cleaned at the central linen cleaning service. Why was that? It was not for reasons of efficiency and not because it would be cheaper for the taxpayer but because the trade union wanted to see linen cleaning services centralised to increase its industrial muscle. That is an example of a government-the Victorian Government in this case-being tied to the trade union movement and dancing to the tune of trade union bosses. Pressures on nurses and staff in hospitals generally have led to their own repercussions. We should ask ourselves why we have seen increasing militancy amongst Victorian nurses. I refer to them because I am better aware of the circumstances in Victoria. The nurses over many years could probably fairly be said to have been underpaid. Moves to improve the employment conditions of nurses would generally be accepted and welcomed by people on both sides of the House. But the fact is that as a result of the increasing pressures placed on nurses, particularly those in the public hospital system, we have seen increasing militancy. That has given a lever and a base for the rise of such people as Irene Bolger. We saw a classic case last week in Victoria. Nurses were going out on strike all over the place over the following circumstance. There was an operation in October last year in the Central Gippsland Hospital. Mr Parkington, who was the surgeon, asked the nurse for an instrument which he required to carry out the operation. He was not passed the instrument because, he found, some nurse had lent it to another hospital. The matter was subject to investigation and the nurse was demoted. After that six nurses imposed work bans. They were sacked. They then went to the State Industrial Relations Commission to claim unfair dismissal. The State Industrial Relations Commission said: `We do not accept your claim'. Then the Royal Australian Nursing Federation reckoned that that was a great issue to bash the Government over the head with and we had nurses going out on strike all over the place. These are the sorts of incidents which are rife throughout the hospital system in Australia and many of them are traceable back to the pressures brought about by the introduction of Medicare. If we are ever to be able to provide decent hospital and medical services for people we will have to do something about Medicare. In the twentieth century when we can put people on the moon and have advanced technology of all sorts, and when doctors and specialists have skills and knowledge of the highest possible standard, we have to ask: `Why is it that we as a community cannot organise ourselves so that the people who require hospital treatment, the people who are sick and disadvantaged, cannot get the treatment that they need?'. The answer is that it is the way we have organised ourselves, the way we have set up our systems in Australia to deliver health care services. The fact is that Medicare is not the way to go. It is a socialist system, introduced by a Minister who has a strong ideological streak and whose ideological streak is more important to him than is the welfare and health of ordinary Australians. Mr Shipton —What about the waiting lists? Mr REITH —I thank my colleague the honourable member for Higgins for his comment. I will finish by saying that the growing hospital queues in the end are the bottom for ordinary Australians. Ordinary Australians cannot feel secure that if they are sick tomorrow they will be able to get the hospital treatment they require. That is a massive indictment on this Government and a massive indictment on its policies and Medicare. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.49) —I support the National Health Amendment Bill 1987. Before I discuss the Bill I would like to comment on some of the remarks that have been made by honourable members opposite. It seems to me that very little time has been spent by them on reading it, and I can understand why. They have been far more interested in the machinations of their Party machines and in who will be leader of what faction and when. Of course, this means that affairs of state take a back seat. This is a shame because there should be a fair measure of support from both sides of the House on the health issue. Judging from honourable members' contributions, I feel they have a degree of support for a decent health service in this country. They may differ as to the means of achieving a good health system but, generally speaking, I will not condemn individual members. The contributions from the Opposition so far in this debate have concentrated essentially on attacking bulk billing and the whole concept of Medicare. I cast back my mind to the pre-Hawke years, to the time when the Fraser Government ran this country and was responsible for its health. We had a succession of schemes, almost on a yearly basis, to try to work out what was the best form of health cover for the country at large. We must remember that eventually we finished up with more than two million people not being covered by the health system of that day. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) in his ubiquitous manner spoke widely on general issues, but he did not once touch the substance of the Bill. This, I am afraid, is an example of what I was speaking of earlier. I want to look at a number of amendments in the Bill and, in particular, at the changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Before I do that, I will refer to two other matters contained in this Bill. The first extends the definition of `pensioner' for the purpose of the principal Act to include certain children of deceased veterans referred to in sub-section 86 (3) of the Veterans Entitlement Act 1986. When, as I anticipate, this amendment is agreed to by the Parliament, these children will be entitled, as they should be, to pharmaceutical benefits free of charge. The second matter relates to an amendment which will enable persons contributing to private health funds to obtain cover for pathology services rendered while they were in-patients of a hospital or a day hospital facility. At present the definition of `basic private table' or `basic table' provides that one of the benefits to be included in the basic table in respect of registered health benefits organisations relates to professional services rendered to persons while they remain in-patients of a hospital or day hospital facility. What must be realised is that professional services extend to include a range of pathology services that are required to be performed after the in-patient has been discharged. For example, pathology samples may be taken at the time the patient was in hospital but the actual testing of them may not be performed until after the date of discharge from hospital. At this point of time, under the present Act, a person who receives such pathology services is denied any benefit from a registered health benefit organisation. I think we would all agree that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. This amendment will rectify this situation by deeming the pathology service which is required, to have been rendered to an in-patient of a hospital or day hospital facility Let us examine the amendments which will affect the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. As honourable members know, this scheme makes a wide range of drugs and medicinal preparations available to the public on a subsidised basis. Drugs are included in the scheme on the basis of a comparison with other available drugs of their quality, safety, effectiveness and cost. It is a scheme which has helped to keep costs down to the consumer, particularly those on low incomes and social security beneficiaries who suffer from chronic illnesses or who have families with young children who are likely to be large users of prescription drugs. These people have all benefited from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The scheme is both responsible and equitable in the light of present budgetary restraints. The scheme commenced on 1 November 1986 and from that date no family or individual was required to pay for more than 25 pharmaceutical benefit scheme prescription items in any one calendar year. After purchasing those 25 items, both general and concessional patients receive all future pharmaceutical benefit prescription items free for the remainder of that year. This so-called safety net provision was an overdue reform which increased protection for high volume users of drugs who previously could face massive bills. It is interesting to observe the confusion which exists on the Opposition benches in respect of the safety net concept. This is another area in which the Opposition cannot get its act together. One doubts whether it ever will. It is doomed-from the Opposition's point of view, not the Government's point of view-to the Opposition benches for many years to come. The Opposition health spokesman, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), wanted to claim credit for designing the safety net provisions. In his speech to the House on 24 September he had this to say: I visited British Columbia to study its pharmaceutical benefits scheme and I was impressed with the safety net idea. I subsequently followed up my discussions with the Pharmacy Guild and, when I addressed the Pharmacy Guild annual general meeting last year, outlined my view that we would in government implement a similar scheme in Australia. He continued: I am glad that the Government has seen fit to pick up this proposal of mine as I believe that it is a more appropriate way to direct the available resources to those most in need. Let us see what the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) had to say about the safety net idea which the honourable member for Barker so warmly embraced. In the same debate and on the same day the honourable member for Petrie-knowing the honourable member, I am sure he said this with great sincerity-stated: Let me examine this prescription record form. I have one here. It is just typical of the bureaucratic nonsense that would come out of the Health Department. He continued: It will be a nightmare for chemists. For once the honourable member for Barker was right. The scheme is a more appropriate way to direct the available resources to those most in need. Mr Hodges —Have you talked to chemists? Mr BLANCHARD —The honourable member should wait and listen. It must not be forgotten that this scheme was developed by the Government through consultation and close co-operation with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. Mr Hodges —So what? Mr BLANCHARD —I think it is important. My friend would have a lot more to say if it were not, I can assure him. According to the figures I have, up to 17 March 53,000 people have been covered by the safety net scheme and obviously more will be covered over time. Furthermore, there has been no criticism of the scheme since it began. It has been well received by both the consumer and the pharmacy industry. In a Press release dated 24 September 1986, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) stated that the Health Department and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia would continue to monitor the impact of the new scheme upon the community to maximise its effectiveness and to ensure that there were no abuses of the new arrangements. The changes to the safety net provisions contained in this Bill illustrate the effectiveness of this monitoring. It has picked up abuses and it has picked up some faults in the operation of the scheme. The amendments provide for two exceptions to the requirement that purchases of pharmaceutical benefits must be for determined quantities if the purchases are to satisfy criteria associated with the issue of pharmaceutical benefits entitlement cards. The safety net legislation does not allow a prescription for fractional quantities of pharmaceutical benefits to count towards the 25-prescription threshold. It was framed that way as a safeguard against doctors prescribing benefits in small quantities to accelerate the issue of an entitlement card. Under the present legislation prescriptions can be counted towards the safety net only where the quantity ordered is the same as the maximum quantity at the date of supply. However, the maximum quantity can change between the date of prescribing and date of supply. It would be unfair if the prescriptions for a maximum quantity at the time of prescribing were not allowed to count towards the safety net threshold because of a change in the maximum quantity by the time of supply. The existing provisions also created an anomaly in the area of addictive and dangerous drugs where prescribing maximum quantities may be inappropriate to the treatment of short term conditions. The requirement that the maximum quantity be prescribed on each occasion contradicts the spirit of present drug initiatives. Clause 5 of the Bill deals with the issue of pharmaceutical benefits entitlement cards. At present, approved pharmacists, medical practitioners and hospital authorities are required to retain for a period of 12 months application forms and accompanying documents which supported their issue of the corresponding entitlement card. The amendment provides a new requirement for such persons to forward those documents to the Secretary to the Department within one month of their issuing the corresponding entitlement card. The effect of this amendment will be that by the regular receipt of these documents the Department of Health will be able to monitor more effectively the safety net scheme. This will specifically assist the pharmacists who at the moment have to wait for payments. These payments to pharmacists will now be able to be made on a regular basis and should not be delayed because of non-receipt of documents. In any new scheme teething problems are always likely to occur, and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme has been no exception to that rule. During the past two years there have been difficulties in the processing of pharmaceutical claims. To ensure that pharmacists continued to receive reimbursement for their claims for drugs dispensed under the scheme, the Department made advance payments based on statistical calculations of the value of the pharmacist's claim. Claims made in this manner were to be subject to full processing when resources became available in order to determine the correct entitlement due. Subsequent advice from the Attorney-General's Department indicated that the Department had no power under section 99 of the National Health Act to make advance payments and that such payments were invalid. The Department immediately ceased making those payments, as it was obliged to do-and rightly so. The Auditor-General was advised of this legal advice and will report to the Parliament on the matter. The proposed legislation will obviously correct that situation. The Department aims to process pharmaceutical claims within a 30-day period. This will have the advantage of allowing pharmacists to receive payment prior to having to pay their drug companies' bills. It will thus help to prevent a financial burden being placed on pharmacists. The amendments contained in this Bill are all designed to improve the operation of the scheme and should be welcomed by both the consumer and the Pharmacy Guild. I support this Bill before the House. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.06) —It is my pleasure also to rise to support this important legislation, the National Health Amendment Bill. We have had a large number of speakers in debate today and debate has ranged fairly widely and, I think, appropriately, over aspects of overall national health policy. It has been instructive, I think, to listen to this debate to see whether or not the Opposition parties have any coherent health policy which they can announce or describe for the Australian people. It is now more than four years since this Government was first elected in March 1983, and yet in that time we have not seen a formally released and instructive health policy from the Opposition parties. I would have thought that in that period the Australian people at least had a right to know what the alternative being offered by the Opposition parties was. What we can glean from what has been said today and from newspaper reports of leaked Liberal Party of Australia meetings, such as those in this morning's paper, is that the Opposition seems to be promising a return to the health system which existed in the Fraser years. Honourable members opposite seem to have learned very little from the seven years that they had in Government and, of course, they seem to have learned very little from what is becoming an increasingly lengthy period that they are spending in Opposition. The Fraser Government gave Australia five health schemes in seven years. I think that is something which the Australian people will not forget for many years. It first dismantled Medibank. Then, as it tried to push more and more costs on to the individual, it made change after change. The final changes occurred in 1981 when cost sharing with the States was terminated. That was a decision which was to cause an explosion in health costs as public and private hospital bed-day charges went through the roof. It also led to substantial increases in private insurance costs. In debate earlier today it was mentioned by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the Opposition spokesman on health matters, that health costs had increased under this Government. It is a claim which he makes consistently, although with little validity. If we look at the statistics and at the last effort of the Liberals when in Government we see that about two million people did not have health insurance. But, more importantly, on the cost aspect-this matter apparently of concern to the Opposition today-health costs increased by 93 per cent between 1981 and 1983. That is just a massive increase. It almost cannot be contemplated that within that two-year period of 1981 to 1983 there was such a massive blowout in health costs in Australia. It is simply not good enough. It is not good enough for the Opposition in this debate to offer no policies and no justification for saying that if it were ever elected to government it would not go back to that same shamed and chaotic scheme that occurred between 1975 and 1982. It is important also in this debate to look at the credibility of the honourable member for Barker in relation to claims which he makes in this place. I have mentioned already the claim that he made today about costs. The facts show that it was during the period of the Fraser Liberal Government that health costs escalated dramatically. But the honourable member for Barker has also been running around the country over the last year or so suggesting that this Government's health policies would run grossly over budget and that this Government was incapable of balancing its health budget. In fact, over a year ago, in February 1986, he said that Medicare would be $250m over budget. In a Press release in March 1986 he said that bulk billing had blown out and that the health budget would be $300m over estimate. This went on throughout 1986. I have here a list of about eight Press releases and speeches that the Opposition spokesman on health made, in which he said that the health budget would blow out by hundreds of millions of dollars. The facts are-- Mr Porter —I was quite right, wasn't I? Mr BRUMBY —I will tell the honourable member the facts because he seems to have an aversion to them. When he hears the facts, they are a bit slow to trickle in. It is sort of the trickle-down theory, is it not? The facts are that this year Medicare is right on budget. Mr Porter —Last year. You are talking about 1986. Mr BRUMBY —No, we are talking about this year because the honourable member's predictions have been made in the last 12 months. In the eight months to the end of February 1987, Medicare benefits paid out totalled $1.874 billion; that is $10.6m, or 0.6 per cent, under budget. Mr Porter —How much were you over last year? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! This is not a matter of cross-examination. Mr BRUMBY —The facts hurt because the honourable member knows that the Opposition's record was so dismal. Mr Porter —What percentage increase is that for this year? Mr BRUMBY —There is no percentage increase. The fact is, as I have just stated it. The honourable member is having trouble understanding it, so I will repeat it. For the eight months to the end of February this year, Medicare benefits totalled $1.874 billion which puts the figure under budget, not $200m or $300m over budget. The honourable member can go around Australia, getting cheap publicity from cheap jibes about inaccurate statistics, but the time will come when people will stop running the cheap publicity because they will finally want him to come up with the figures. They will finally want the Opposition to come up with a policy. I mentioned an article in this morning's Melbourne Age. It was yet another leaked Liberal policy from a Liberal meeting. It suggests that the Liberals are getting close now, after four years, to finalising their policy on health. It is nice to see that that is occurring after four years. But from what we can glean from newspaper articles, it seems that two central aspects of the Opposition's health policy are, firstly, that it would like to scrap totally Commonwealth medical benefit subsidies for all except pensioners and the disadvantaged, and, secondly, it would like to increase public hospital charges to reflect full costs. I want to make a few points about that. Under this Government costs for medical services and administration of Medicare totalled $2.8 billion for 1985-86-the last full financial year. Even if the Opposition under its policy covered the costs of approximately $1 billion for pensioners and the disadvantaged, medical costs of $1.8 billion would be shifted to the public. I hope there is no disagreement about that analysis, because it is fairly elementary. If one carries on that analysis, on the basis that health costs of $150m per annum represent an extra $1 a week for private insurance at the basic rate, $1.8 billion represents a medical insurance cost of $12 a week. It is simply a matter of multiplying 12 by 150, which is how one reaches the figure of $1.8 billion. So we are looking, just at that side, at an extra $12 a week. Of course, that is just the figure for medical insurance. To that must be added the cost of hospital insurance. Before Medicare, the cost of hospital accommodation was about $130 a day. Adjusting that amount for inflation, that figure would now be approximately $170 a day. Health fund hospital contributions to cover this level of charge would have to be set at approximately $15 a week. That seems to be the thrust of the Opposition's health policy. The cost of the transfer of all of that from the public sector to the private sector, making some concessions for pensioners and other needy people, in medical insurance terms is $12 a week. The cost in terms of hospital insurance is $15 a week. That means that under the Liberals yet to be announced health policy, total health insurance costs for the average Australian would be $27 a week. If one multiplies that figure by 52-which is how many weeks there are in a year-one gets an enormous figure. It is a four-figure number. Mr Porter —It is over $1,400 on your calculations, and it is absolute rubbish. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you. The honourable member for Barker suggests that what I have just described as the Liberal Party's probable policy on health would add up to private insurance costs of more than $1,400 per annum. Let us see how that compares with the situation under this Government. A person in receipt of an income of $20,000-many people earn $20,000-who is currently paying only the one per cent Medicare levy would be $22 a week worse off if the Opposition ever came to government. Would that not be outrageous! Mr Porter —It would be a popular policy, wouldn't it? Mr BRUMBY —It would be very popular for the Liberal Party. Mr Porter —Do you reckon we would do that? Mr BRUMBY —Yes, I do, because it is all part of the Opposition's philosophy of shifting those taxes on to people so that the people in the community who are well off, those on incomes of $50,000 and $60,000 a year, would pay less-and I will come to that in a moment-but the large majority of ordinary people in our community would pay more. It is a sleight-of-hand tactic. The Opposition would try to bring down the Budget deficit by transferring that public expenditure to the private sector. So the ordinary person who is in receipt of $20,000 a year would be $22 a week worse off under the Opposition's policy. If they were taking basic private insurance as well, as many people do, they would be nearly $14 a week worse off. A person in receipt of average weekly earnings, which are about $23,500, who is still paying the Medicare levy and who has private insurance, would be more than $12 a week worse off. Of course, the key point in the Opposition's policy is that individuals on high incomes would be very much better off. The alternative to the abolition of Medicare is the much-quoted opting-out system-something for which I believe the honourable member for Barker has a fair bit of sympathy. It is called the opting-out system and it would allow people to choose between Medicare-- Mr Porter —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Whilst the debate has obviously been very wide ranging, we have had hypothesis after hypothesis from the honourable member which do not relate in any way to the legislation. They relate to his fantastic ideas of a policy, which certainly has nothing to do with the coalition. I suggest that you draw his attention to the legislation and ask him to be relevant to the Bill. Dr Blewett —On the point of order: It does seem to me that, given the extraordinary latitude that has been allowed to Opposition members, and even the remarkable tissue of nonsense produced by the honourable member for Barker which did not relate to the Bill whatsoever, there should be no restriction on members in this debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —I believe the debate has been extraordinarily wide ranging, having regard to the title of the Bill. It is a Bill to amend the National Health Act. It covers a wide range of health-related issues. It seems to me, as well as government policy and the way in which government policy might go, it is appropriate to consider Opposition alternatives. Mr BRUMBY —Thank you for your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was pointing out that the alternative to the abolition of Medicare which I have just described would be what is known as the opting-out system. Honourable members would certainly recall that that was what the Fraser Government used and tried in 1976. It lasted a mere 18 months or two years and it was scrapped in November 1978. The problem with opting out arrangements is that only the healthy and the well-off opt out. That leaves people on low incomes and those with chronic illness as the only ones left in the insurance system. If opting out is allowed, why would fit young people of 18, 19 or 20 years of age bother to make any contribution to insurance? Of course, they do not. That is the problem with the opting out system. On the income side, if people earning above average weekly earnings were to opt out, as they did in 1976 under the Fraser scheme, they would take nearly 60 per cent of the Medicare levy collections with them. The result-this will come as no surprise to any honourable members who have carefully looked at the facts-is that those remaining in Medicare would face a doubling of the levy to 2.5 per cent. That was what occurred under Fraser in 1976. Judging from an article in the Age newspaper this morning, I suspect that that is on track with where the Opposition is going. I wish to conclude by commenting on a few of the points made in the debate. I have briefly addressed the question of costs, which has come up again and again. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) tried to claim that families are worse off under Medicare than they were under the previous health insurance arrangements. That is arrant nonsense. If he goes around the country making such absurd statements, as I warned the House earlier, eventually people will stop listening to this rubbish. They want to hear realistic alternatives, not the fantasy-land alternatives put forward by those opposite. They want to know the policy options, because in the next year there will be an important election and people will have an important choice to make. They really want to know what the Opposition's policies are. If one looks at the cost aspect and analyses the consumer price index over the period 1980-81 to the December quarter of 1986, one sees that health costs rose more under a variety of Fraser schemes than they have since the introduction of Medicare on 1 February 1984. If one takes 1980-81 as the base index of 100, the figures show the true impact of the Opposition's health policies compared with Medicare. For the health services group, the index increased to 184.1 by June 1983; a year later in June 1984-under the first full quarter of Medicare-the health services group had dropped to 102.7. By December 1986, it had increased only to 138.4. In fact, if one compares health costs with the costs over the same period of food, clothing, housing, transport, tobacco, alcohol and so on, one sees that increases in health and personal care costs have been modest compared with those other areas. The final point I wish to make touches the question of choice. The Opposition claims that it will offer choice at the next election. What it really offers is cliches, meaningless nonsense, in place of policies. Under the present health system all Australians-no matter where they live, no matter what their state of health or income-have complete freedom of choice. We are all covered for basic hospital and medical treatment through the payment of a fair and equitable Medicare levy. If we want to have a doctor of our choice and to be treated in a private hospital, all we have to do is to take out private insurance. There is no restriction on any individual anywhere in Australia on any income from taking out private insurance. Everyone in Australia has freedom of choice in the health area but, importantly, every Australian has basic hospital and medical cover. That is where the philosophies of this Government vary vastly from the philosophies of the Liberal and National parties which unquestionably, if ever returned to government, would place us back in the old horse and buggy days when two million Australians under the Fraser Government had no right or entitlement to health care. That was a disgraceful policy; it has been amended under this Government. All Australians now have basic hospital and medical entitlements and can have a freedom of choice by taking out additional private insurance. I commend the legislation to the House. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(6.25) —The National Health Amendment Bill seeks, among other things, to amend the conditions under which pharmaceutical benefits will be paid and pharmacists reimbursed. The Pharmaceutical benefits scheme as it now exists provides for the supply of approved drugs and medicines to the public on payment of a patient contribution and gives entitlement to pensioners and other eligible persons free of cost. The Auditor-General, in his report released today, commented on some of the matters which have plagued the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the computer-based program known as Pharmpay, which is the name given to the computer system by which these payments to pharmacists are processed. It is also used for the extraction and collation of statistics and for other administrative checks, including the establishment of a database of drug usage for future reference and, presumably, to help establish a policy in respect of future payments. It seems that not so long ago-I remember dealing with this subject in an adjournment debate-for some reason the staff resources available to Pharmpay at the processing centres have been insufficient at different times, and certainly in the recent past. The reason given was that an unexpected number of keyboard operators suffered from repetitive strain injury, and there were simply not enough operators to process all the information and to remit payments, particularly over the period January to May 1985. The Department of Health then developed a proposal to overcome the processing backlog of prescriptions by making advance payments prior to verification of the entitlement of pharmacists. In March 1985 the Health Department sought comments on this proposed system of advance payments from the Department of Finance, which allegedly responded that it had no objection in principle, but urged the Department of Health to obtain the advice of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). The Department, as it turned out, did not seek that advice, and therein lies the problem which I shall come to. Advance payments nevertheless commenced in 1985, in the absence of that legal advice that it was suggested should be sought from the Attorney-General. Some time later, in discussions with the Department of Health over settling the backlog of pharmaceutical claims, the Auditor-General also suggested that legal advice be obtained on ways of ensuring the validity of the proposed basis of settlement. Legal advice was eventually obtained from the Attorney-General, and attention was drawn to section 98c (1) (b) of the Act. It was noted that it does not authorise the making of payments. It only allows the Minister to determine conditions subject to which payments otherwise authorised by the Act can be made. The Department has advised the Auditor-General that on receipt of legal advice advance payments were suspended immediately and action was to be taken to amend the National Health Act. I am not sure whether these amendments include the appropriate amendments resulting from the circumstances with which I have just dealt. I am delighted to see the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, nodding in acknowledgment. The fact is that advance payments have been made without appropriation in contravention of section 83 of the Constitution, which states that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law. If there were a department in breach of the Constitution, I would have thought that as soon as that was known this House might have been advised. I would also have thought that that would have been emphasised in what the Minister had to say in introducing these Bills. That is, of course, a very serious matter. The Minister, as the person ultimately responsible, is indeed responsible for that, as are the officers under him. Sitting suspended from 6.31 to 8 p.m. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.00) —in reply-Apparently the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who was the last speaker on the Opposition side and who was only half-way through his speech on the National Health Amendment Bill, regarded his remarks as so unimportant as not to return to the House to complete them. In these circumstances I am happy to wind up this second reading debate. The first point I want to make is that, as usual with these health Bill debates, it is not the Bill that has been debated; we have listened to the usual collection of mendacities about Medicare, which as usual, has been blamed for all the faults in the health system. Today those accusations became quite laughable-Medicare, I understand, is somehow responsible for the generic drugs policy of this Government; Medicare is responsible for aspects of the Pharmpay system; and Medicare is responsible for hospital waiting lists. I wish to refute each of those charges which have been made by the Opposition in this debate. The best point to start with is the assertion of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) that we had an excellent health scheme in this country before Medicare. That sort of proposal has already been dealt with by most of my colleagues, who have treated it as the bunkum it is. I want to make a few points in relation to that. Of course, under Medicare there has been an increase in the total number of services provided to Australian people, simply because under the failed health schemes of the previous Government two million people did not have access to doctors. To give them that universal cover has meant, of course, that in toto there has been an increase in the number of people treated under the Medicare system. It is simply nonsense and incorrect and wrong in fact, as are so many statements of the honourable member for Barker, as my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) so eloquently pointed out, to claim that there has been an increase in overservicing under Medicare-that is, an increased number of services per patient, which is the basic characteristic of overservicing; that is, more and more services being delivered to particular patients. The figures simply confute that assertion by the honourable member for Barker. In the last year of the Liberal health scheme, 1983, there were 7.70 services per enrolled population; in 1986, which is the last year for which we have statistics, there were 7.68 per enrolled population. I will not claim that Medicare is leading to less servicing of patients, but there has been no change in the pattern of servicing of patients under Medicare. Of course, the kinds of alleged facts produced by the honourable member for Barker are then used to show that overservicing is going on, of which there is no evidence, as I have just pointed out. That leads him to attack bulk billing. I point out that those figures show that bulk billing has not led to an increased number of services per patient. Opposition members talk about doing away with bulk billing in order to deal with the alleged problem of overservicing which their figures do not support. Let me point out that 70 per cent of those bulk billed are pensioners and the disadvantaged in this community; the great proportion of those bulk billed are the poor and the disadvantaged. The remaining 30 per cent who are bulk billed are mostly the less well off. As the survey of doctors in Sydney by the Australian Consumers Association quite clearly indicated, in Sydney the greatest amount of bulk billing is being done in the working class suburbs. What we have mostly in this country is not doctors exploiting bulk billing but compassionate doctors using the bulk billing facility to treat pensioners, the disadvantaged and others who are not well off or who are in great need of medical services, which was always the intention. Again we had, as usual, this one-handed accountant, which is the only way we could describe the honourable member for Barker, making all these claims about an explosion in health costs. Of course, according to the figures there has been a significant increase on the expenditure side under Medicare, but that has been offset almost entirely by the levy and by the ending of the tax rebate system. Despite all the tales of the Opposition, there has not been an explosion in the net costs of health under this Government. Indeed, the increase in costs has been offset by the moneys coming in from the levy and by the ending of the tax rebate. We have to balance the two parts of the Budget, otherwise one simply becomes a one-handed accountant-the chief method of calculation used by the honourable member for Barker. In his efforts to account for the costs of Medicare he bemoans the fact that last year it cost 96c to process each Medicare claim, and he said what a dreadful increase it was. I point out to him that that amount-96c per claim-is less than the cost of processing claims four years ago. Despite inflation and despite the increases in other costs, the processing cost of claims under Medicare is today less than it was under the Liberal system four years ago. As my colleague the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) pointed out quite clearly, under the Liberal system the administration cost was 10 per cent; administration of the 67 health funds ate up 10 per cent of the moneys going into health. We have cut that to 4.6 per cent, which represents a saving over three years of $300m which we have been able to put into health and not waste on administration. The absurdities that we heard today went even farther. We got to the Pharmpay system. Somehow the honourable member for Barker said that Pharmpay-the system of paying pharmacists-could be described as unworkable. I ask: Who designed Pharmpay? The answer is that it was designed by the Fraser Government. A working party under the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who was the Minister in those days, designed Pharmpay. Which Cabinet approved the Pharmpay system? It was the Cabinet of the Fraser Government when the honourable member for Warringah was Minister for Health. Who began the implementation of Pharmpay? Again it was the Fraser Government. The tenders were called in 1982. Insofar as there were flaws in the Pharmpay system, it was very much designed, decided on and implemented by the previous Government. By the time we came to power this juggernaut was very well down the road. Its being a new system, this Government was hit with the obvious problems that one has with a new and massive processing system. To deal with this, payments were based on an average sample of scripts. As the honourable member for Curtin was trying to point out, it was discovered that this was an illegal way of making these payments. That sort of payment has been made since 1974 whenever there has been a crisis in the pharmacy paying system. If it were illegal in the last two years-as has been pointed out, the procedure has been in place since 1974-each time we have had a crisis in the pharmacy paying system this illegal system has been used. At least this Government has recognised that problem, and has dealt with it in this legislation. Even more, we are trying to make the Pharmpay system work to clean up the problems that we inherited from the previous regime. For instance, we now have a settlement which will deal with that whole problem of backlog-a settlement negotiated with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. This is a result of the co-operation existing between this Government and the Pharmacy Guild. We are trying to streamline the procedures which again had been passed on to us in relation to this Pharmpay juggernaut. We are developing very quickly the claims transmission system; that is, having a computerised system of putting in claims. Indeed, I can now say that, as a result of the further actions we have taken, today claims are being processed and paid in all States in under 30 days. However, let me say, like so many of the messes that we have had in the health area, they come very much from what we inherited from the previous Government. The theory was advanced again today by the honourable member for Barker that the problem we have had with generic drugs is the result of this Government's determination to offset Medicare costs by trying to process generic drugs very quickly. Let me point out again that the policies we have pursued in this area are simply the policies that we inherited from the previous Government. Insofar as there has been a so-called fast track process whereby a priority approval for some generic drugs was in place, it has been in place for the last decade or more. So I would suggest that the honourable member for Barker go ask his mates about the system which was introduced under them. This Government has given no instruction whatsoever in relation to this so-called fast track system. It accepted the system which had been passed on from the preceding government. Indeed, we have not been operating this system for the past two years. That is, for most of the Medicare period the so-called fast track program has not been operated by this Government. Again, the honourable member tried to smear the Government with the claim of the release of a generic drug on to the market before all tests had been concluded on that drug. Again I suggest he go ask his mates about that drug because one such incident occurred in 1979-80 and it appears to have been the one referred to in that recent newspaper report. So, again, alleged problems that this Government has had are very much the result of the policy developed under the previous Government. The honourable member then went on to refer to 33 generic drugs about which issues have been raised in relation to the Gestalt data. Around half of those 33 drugs were approved under the previous Government. Again, I make the point that this whole supposed fast track procedure, or alleged fast track procedure, has been one which has been in operation for a number of years, which was devised and developed before this Government came to power. Again, contrary to the claims that the honourable member repeats in this House in relation to the problems with the Gestalt data-he never listens to any argument or to any fact but just simply goes on repeating his claims and he knows that in this case what he has said is wrong. He knows that they were only brought to my attention last October and that the Hall report was only brought to my notice at that time, as I have made clear quite precisely in this House. It may well be that officers in my Department were remiss in not bringing that information before the Minister before that date. But as soon as it came before me-as soon as it came before the Minister-we took immediate actions. I appointed outside consultants to review the questionable data. We held a special meeting of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee-ADEC-and this Government accepted immediately all of its recommendations. We then decided, following up those recommendations, to appoint an inquiry under the auspices of the Public Service Board. I just point out that this committee of inquiry will be oversighted by a group consisting of Mr Chris Geckeler, First Assistant Commissioner of the Public Service Board, Dr Ron Wells, Director of the Australian Institute of Health, and Dr Robert Parfitt, Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education and soon to take up a position as Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia. That Committee will draw upon overseas advice. As soon as these problems were brought to our notice, unlike a government which did nothing about it, which introduced these policies but made no effective effort to monitor them, these actions were taken immediately. All of the decisions flow from the information which was brought to my attention in October about the problems we had with the Gestalt data. I just want briefly to deal with what is the only argument which in any way honourable members have been able to sustain in relation to Medicare, and that is hospital waiting lists. I do not intend to go at length through this problem again as I have explained it to the House. But as every report on hospital waiting lists in the States have made clear, it is not a Medicare problem. We reached the absurdity today where it was suggested that nurses somehow lent out instruments because of Medicare and the bitter battle that Victorian nurses had about their wages and conditions was essentially to do with Medicare. It was due to the fact that for many years their claims in many cases had been ignored by administrations and by previous governments. Mr Kerin —Eclipses of the moon, too. Dr BLEWETT —I agree with my colleague that anything will be linked with Medicare. The main causes, as some honourable members mentioned, have been clearly identified as staff shortages, mainly nurses, and the associated bed closures. The problem has also been caused by industrial problems in hospitals. There is no doubt that when doctors go on strike in Canberra or somewhere else the waiting lists are added to. If nurses take industrial action again one adds to the waiting lists. Major technological changes have increased demands for operations. These are the issues at the heart of the waiting list problem and these are the issues that need to be specifically addressed. These issues are being taken up by the States. Victoria has recruited nurses from overseas so that it can open up its extra beds. It is arranging contracts with private hospitals and has expanded home care services to cater for nursing home-type patients. There has been an expanded use of operating theatres in South Australia to enable these facilities to operate on Saturday mornings. Increased day surgery is being developed in public hospitals. These are the specific actions that have been taken in relation to the specific problems and not in relation to the vague ideology and cliches produced by the Opposition. Let me deal with a couple of issues that directly relate to the Bill because most of the things that were said by members of the Opposition had nothing to do with the legislation. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) is one of the few pharmacists in this country who has been critical of the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Let me point out that the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which has been widely supported both by the public and pharmacists in this country, is the most massive change in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in a generation. Yet it has been accomplished with remarkably little problems. I am not saying that when one introduces a new scheme such as this one does not have some administrative problems. But, in fact, the scheme has worked remarkably smoothly, given the preparatory time we have had and given the massive changes involved. I am very glad to say that this scheme was designed to benefit those in the community who needed medicines most. Already 28,000 cards have been issued entitling such people to free pharmaceutical benefits. That means that something like 68,000 people have already benefited; that is, people most in need of medicines under this new scheme. Despite the comments made by Opposition members-again they are incorrect-we are roughly on target. The estimated number of cards is roughly what we expected at this point of time. Members of the Opposition may make their critical comments. But members of the public know that the scheme is working. They know that in difficult times we have designed a scheme which protects pensioners and also provides new protections for those most in need of medicine, meaning that the rest of us have to pay a bit more. But the people in need, either on medical grounds or on the grounds of disadvantage or pensioner status, receive their drugs free. I think they are the major points that I wanted to make in relation to this debate. Insofar as Opposition members discussed the Bill itself, I have given specific responses. I believe that this Government's Medicare scheme, despite the criticisms that have been made, mostly, as I have said on no factual basis whatsoever-and there has been no effort to answer the argument produced on this side-will continue as the health scheme of this country. As compared with the things that the Opposition is talking about offering, Medicare will remain a major electoral asset for this Government in the coming election. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General re- commending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 25 February, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill concurrently with the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2). There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(8.21) —The Opposition does not oppose the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1987, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, but I want to make some observations and ask the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) a number of questions regarding the mess which the Government has created for those who are paying the fees which are subject to these Bills. There are two questions in particular to which I would like the Minister to reply tonight. I will ask others but I will be content to wait for him to reply when he presents the Bill in May which he is now drafting on the ownership and control of television and radio, but particularly, I understand, television. The licensees of Australian television and radio are very concerned with the ownership and control rules that are now proposed and, of course, they are the subject of the Bills now before the house. My first point of comment and criticism concerns the remote community television service. Aussat Pty Ltd has set a deadline of tomorrow. It set that deadline last week in a letter to the licensees of the north-eastern and south-eastern beams on the third satellite. We are all aware that the north-eastern and south-eastern beams cover Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria-those remote parts which cannot be reached through ordinary regional television. Of course, the idea was to reach them via the satellite. Consortia of regional television stations operating in those areas joined together to apply for a licence and were granted that licence but the stations felt that, as a consequence of the Government's own policies to aggregate regional television areas, their own viability as regional stations was at stake. As a result, they could not proceed with the consortia actually to launch the remote community television service via the satellite. I can understand that Aussat has an obligation, under the laws of this Parliament, to operate commercially and that it wants its transponders to be fully utilised. But it seems curious that the Aussat board should have decided on tomorrow's date when it knows, and knew at the time that it set tomorrow's date, that the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation, will be reporting next Monday to the Senate on the Government's regional television legislation. The matter will not be disposed of by the Senate next Monday but it will be disposed of, one understands, with reasonable dispatch. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: Will he ensure that Aussat, which, after all, has to report to him even though it is incorporated, actually enables those licensees-the consortia that I have referred to-to have an opportunity to proceed with their licences in the event that they assess their commercial viability differently from the way in which they did when the Senate Select Committee was chosen. I venture the view that they will only make that assessment if the Government's policies are changed as a result of further Senate deliberation. I have to point out that the only remote commercial television station now operating is in Western Australia. It is operated by Golden West Network Ltd but with substantial funding from the Western Australian Government. Likewise, the central Australian service, which will be operated by an Aboriginal co-operative, will be funded by the Federal Government. No such funding arrangements have been promised in respect of the outback Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian services. On that basis, I believe that it is unreasonable for Aussat or the Government to expect the consortia to go ahead in the circumstances that we now find, where its future is in doubt because of Government legislation and because of a stipulation that it has to comply with an Aussat request by tomorrow. We know very well that Aussat's third satellite is to be launched by the Ariane launcher system in Europe. We know that that has broken down and has delayed the launch. We do not know-the Minister may know-when the third satellite will be up. So I put it to the Minister that he should be able to extend the time available and inform the public tonight that he is requesting Aussat to do so; he should also give us some idea when the third satellite will be up so that any commercial interest that is able to take advantage of the opportunity to provide this service could then make a bid in the event that the existing licensees do not proceed. If they do not proceed, by what means does the Government intend the remote community television service to be provided, or is the Government to be taken as forsaking the interest of Australians living in these remote areas? I want to quote from an article in the Australian of Monday this week headed `Aussat sets deadline on transponders'. I will not quote the entire article but there are several important parts of it. It states: LETTERS sent last week by Aussat to two remote commercial television licence-holders, offer the first hint that Aussat might shortly be in a position to lease two 30-watt transponders on its satellite system to the leading television networks. Aussat has imposed a March 20 deadline for the two Queensland and NSW-Victoria RCTS licence-holders to pay up or lose their transponder allotment. They are asked to sign a customer service agreement by that date. The deal amounts to a $4 million leasehold commitment for each consortium. If the March 20 deadline is not met by the two RCTS consortiums, Aussat says it will offer the transponders on the open market. The consequence could be to open the door for the three big television networks to lease the capacity to broadcast national TV. This proposal would appeal to the networks, and be in line with the original design of the satellite system in the early 1980s under the former Liberal government. But this would be in direct conflict with the intention of the RCTS legislation developed by the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy. Each of the channels holds a 12-watt transponder lease, and under its new ownership by the Bond Corp, Channel Nine now leases two 30-watt transponders, one of which is used for broadcast of video entertainment to clubs and pubs. SBS holds a 12-watt transponder lease. The impact of the Aussat decision, if it goes ahead, could mean the end to the long-promised and long-awaited delivery of commercial television to all Australians in remote areas-the original justification for government investment in Aussat. The move shows that Aussat is impatient with the policy confusion. It needs to reap revenue from the two transponders, no matter what, and has set a deadline for that revenue. The technical consequence of the Queensland and NSW-Victoria regional consortiums failing to meet the deadline of March 20 could be that commercial television would be financially out of reach of most remote area viewers. If commercial TV were offered on a national beam, as the network channels would inevitably prefer, this could only be received with a large dish-up to 4m across, at a cost of about $15,000, compared with the 1.5m $1000 dish proposed for the shared ABC and commercial remote television service in the original plan. Many outback users have purchased a $1000 dish to receive ABC TV, with the understanding that under the RCTS, they would later be able to receive commercial TV using the same dish. But the purchase of the two transponders by commercial channels could mean a second dish would be needed to pick up nationally broadcast commercial TV-possibly from a second satellite. Remote television service was the second tier of the Government's justification for the development of the satellite system, which was originally proposed as a private venture by Channel Nine. The Government turned Aussat into a government-owned private company, giving Telecom a 25 per cent shareholding, with the balance held by the Department of Communications. The Government has an obligation to inform the public, especially those living in remote areas, of its view of these developments. I wish now to turn to another matter in which Government policy is in chaos. That is, of course, the ownership of the television stations, the subject of the legislation before us tonight. On 27 November the Minister for Communications announced that the ban on one licensee owning more than two stations was lifted, subject to certain other restrictions. On the basis of the Press release there was a massive shakeout in the media. Several media corporations are now in breach of the law and it remains only for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to formally conclude that this is the case. The Government might not even get into the Parliament this session its Bill to amend the law in accordance with the contents of the press release, and it is by no means certain that the Parliament will pass the Bill anyway. Meanwhile, more questions are arising than were within the contemplation of the Government when the Press release was made. Some of the companies bidding for print and electronic media in recent months have large non-media commercial interests. This has serious implications for free speech. I have frequently expressed my concern outside the Parliament regarding the potential for news management if the ownership and control of the media is in very few hands. A media magnate who wished to wield political power could certainly do so unless the concentration of ownership was self-controlled or diminished. Ways of doing that will be debated when the Government's proposed changes come before us. I ask the Minister tonight to consider whether it might be in the public interest to place some curbs upon the ownership and control of the media by non-media interests. Late last year the Bond companies withdrew their advertising from the Fairfax group because Mr Bond disliked an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. I ask: What if a media proprietor did not like the words or actions of a government or an opposition? It does not take much imagination to realise that a range of retaliatory measures might be available if the non-media interests of the proprietor were under threat by either government action or inaction. For example, there would surely be a temptation to manage media perceptions of a politician or government seeking to impose a tax on an industry, one part of which owned and controlled a television station or even a dominant radio outlet. If the non-media owner included a gold producer, and if the Government contemplated a gold tax-which this Government did until recently-would not there be a temptation on the part of the owner to use the media to influence opinion against the Government or to have the Government back down by threatening to do so? I am not suggesting that this has happened. This situation has only just arisen, but the potential for it is considerable. We would be naive and irresponsible as parliamentarians, in my view, if we did not take this into account when considering the legislation which the Government hopes to bring before us in a matter of weeks. Likewise this could happen with the array of charges which governments from time to time levy upon certain of the oil-related and mineral industries. With drops in world commodity pricing, concessions are sometimes sought from governments, so the potential to use the media arm owned by a predominantly non-media empire might be very strong. Likewise, with beer or spirits, one can imagine that if television stations or networks were owned by people whose essential income came from beer or spirits they might seek to have the restrictions on the hours of advertising on television lifted. What if a tobacco company owned and controlled a television network and wanted to pressure the Government into allowing cigarette advertising to come back in again? Mr Ruddock —It is like the airlines. Mr MACPHEE —As the honourable member for Dundas reminds us, another question relates to dramatic changes to airline policies. There is tremendous scope for influence. In March 1984, the editor of the Melbourne Age, Creighton Burns, warned: Newspaper management have, I fear, put them selves and their editors at hazard. The inter-connection between newspaper ownership and investment in other activities subject to government control or influence has left active editorial independence vulnerable to political pressure. I might say that Mr Burns's remarks could now be extended to other branches of the media. A potential conflict of interests exists between the non-media interests of media proprietors and government or Oppositions in many areas of policy. Two others that spring to mind readily are the environment and Aboriginal land rights. The gaining of lucrative contracts is another area of potential news management by media owners reliant for much of their income on non-media government business is another area of importance. Again, this can be illustrated by an example in the United States-that is, the takeover of NBC, America's largest radio and television network, by a non-journalistic or non-media organisation, General Electric-which recently caused some alarm. As Vittorio Zucconi said in his Article `America's Media Empires' in the World Press Review of May last year about General Electric: . . . principle scope is neither news nor entertainment but household appliances, airplane engines, nuclear reactor, and arms. General Electric has a long history of public controversy concerning nuclear power plants and military contracts and is the Pentagon's largest supplier. There is a fear that a conflict of interests is inevitable. Zucconi noted in his article: On that December afternoon a little piece of the legendary American press freedom died. My concern is based on the fact that the dissemination of information and opinion is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Freedom of speech is too precious to be put at risk. News management does occur but it is hard to prove. It is hard to take action after the event. Owners do set parameters, if only by their choice of editors. Sometimes, self-censorship is worse than overt censorship. I am not, of course, advocating censorship but I am alerting the public, through this House, to the need for some debate on these matters. As it was not, and reasonably could not have been, within the Government's contemplation last November but now must be, I ask the Minister to consider it so that we can debate it when he brings in his legislation. Professor Henry Mayer, a well-known commentator on the media in Australia, has often pointed to the potential for the abuse of media power. At a conference organised last weekend by the Australian Institute for Political Science on democracy and electronic media he pointed to the absence of what he called a media culture in Australia. He really meant that we have lost sight of our democratic culture. We take our liberties for granted, and that is something that we cannot afford to do. Indeed, several well-known media commentators said at that public forum that the proprietors for whom they have worked over the years have probably never even spared a moment for democracy or recognised that they were an essential ingredient of it. I do not doubt that that is so. It is time that we all considered the value to us of democracy. Our economy is in crisis and we all know that. The signs of totalitarianism, and intolerance of the needy, along with racism, greed and rising lawlessness are there as warnings to us. What does the Government have in mind to tackle the problem created by the scramble for media ownership? That scramble deliberately and immediately followed the announcement on 27 November last year. Will the Government, for example, grant more licences-I would be interested if the Minister would respond to this-in our capital cities on the basis that the more channels there are, the less open to abuse the media might be? Another matter, with which I intend to conclude my contribution, and which is also a consequence of the media scramble, concerns Channel HSV7 in Melbourne. The Fairfax organisation owns Channel 7 in Sydney and Brisbane and is in breach of the two-station rule by buying HSV7 from the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. It is also in breach of the Government's proposed cross-media ownership rules. As we understand it, the Australian Democrats in the Senate intend to support the Government and therefore those rules are likely to be approved by the Parliament. Even if nothing else is approved, it seems that they might be. On that basis all observers expect that the Fairfax organisation must sell either Channel 7 in Melbourne or the Age. It is not for me to dwell on the options open to the Fairfax organisation and which one it is most likely to take, but it is generally regarded by those whose business it is to know these things as being the temporary, and ultimately the illegal, owner of HSV7. Yet it is greatly rationalising the Seven network and, in the course of that, is reducing the number of Melbourne-produced programs. Indeed, the staff believe that Melbourne programs will, in the end, represent about 25 per cent of the output of the station and therefore it seems certain that the employment of many production and administrative staff will be terminated. As a result, representatives of HSV7 staff have approached me with some really sad stories of the employees who fear that not only the increased centralisation in Sydney of Channel 7 but also the existing concentration, because the head offices of Channel 9 and Channel 10 are in Sydney, will leave them with an insufficient number of jobs which can use the skills which they have acquired. Some of them have been very loyal to HSV7 for many years and some from its inception. For this dislocation to have been caused by a temporary owner raises serious questions of morality which the Fairfax organisation must consider. Equally serious for the Government is the administration of the law. I ask the Minister: What has he done to ensure that the existing law is administered as expeditiously and fairly as possible? We have a policy which led to this scramble. We now have very considerable legislative uncertainty about its future and when it might be introduced into, let alone processed through, the Parliament. In the meantime, many investors and many employees are becoming worried about the security of their investment or employment. Has the Government asked the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to give this matter priority over those involving others who are in the breach of the law, such as the Bendat family in Western Australia or, of course, the Bond companies? I believe that in the circumstances the Fairfax inquiry ought to receive priority over the other two. Will the Minister tell us what is the schedule of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's inquiries? What is the Government's legislative schedule to try to cure the mess that has now arisen as a result of its Press release of last November and the scramble that followed it? I suspect that the six months period of grace which is provided in the broadcasting and television legislation for the breach of the two-station rule will have expired before the Government has any kind of ownership Bill through this Parliament. I wonder what the Government will do in that event. These are some extremely important questions being raised throughout the industry, especially amongst those employed in it or seeking contracts with it. Above all, it is a matter of vital concern to everyone who watches and listens. In respect of the machinery of the Bills, the Opposition is in accord with the Government in believing that these are important measures, we certainly support the passage of these Bills but hope that the Government will take into account the constructive, but I think important, questions which I have raised tonight. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.44) —We are debating the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2). I welcome the co-operation of the Opposition in this debate for the passage of these Bills, but once again we see some evidence of contrasts within the coalition. I doubt whether the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia shares the views of its spokesman on communications. He seems to want more regulation of the broadcasting industries and his leaders seem to want less. Earlier today we saw evidence of differences within the Party when the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) differed markedly from the Liberal spokesman on health on the wisdom of safety nets for prescriptions for the chronically ill. Tonight we see a real contrast in the policies on media ownership. The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) is worried about the types of owners in television and radio, yet his leader thinks that television and radio ownership should be open slather-anyone should be allowed to own them. What has happened seems reasonable enough to me. New owners have come into television and there is more likely to be a diversity of presentation. I say to those who think that media ownership has become too concentrated that they ought to look at the broad spectrum of ownership now operating particularly in the television industry. I believe it will lead to that diversity. I am very concerned about the proposed changes scheduled for certain television stations. For instance, WIN television in New South Wales is required to change to UHF transmission. I have written to the chairperson to the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation stating a number of concerns that I have. I would like to see an independent person or committee established to look at a number of points in relation to conversion to UHF. I am concerned whether the requirement will have a predicted outcome, whether that outcome will be fair to viewers, some of whom will lose their reception, and whether that outcome is unreasonable at a time when the Government has, through aggregation, decided to broaden the available television programs. I have tried to discuss and explain the policies to local people. I accept that the move is an attempt in theory to correct the mistakes made with television started. However, it has become more and more evident to me that the changes may create more problems than they will solve. I suggest that an independent person or committee should look at whether transfer to UHF should be abandoned for all channels other than new channels. For instance, WIN television should be permitted to use VHF channel 3 from Knights Hill and thus service all of the people who now receive it. I have been advised that there are approximately 100 FM bands, of which 20 are in the VHF area. There are plenty of radio stations-and they come to see me-in capital cities and country areas which want more FM bands. There is a very urgent need on the South Coast of New South Wales for an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio service. At least 20,000 people on the South Coast of New South Wales have little or no access to ABC radio, and it will probably have to be provided on FM bands. If it is true that there are approximately 100 FM bands of which 20 are in the VHF area, that leaves plenty of bands for FM for the time being. I understand that band 4, in the middle of the bands, will need to be taken from WIN television in Wollongong. Band 3 will not interfere with band 3 Newcastle because the 5A band exists comfortably in both areas. We should look at the possibility of WIN using channel 3 VHF. I also suggest that any independent inquiry should consider whether band 5A could be retained for Wollongong ABC. It is already used in Newcastle and apparently is not part of the band 2 clearance. It may well be that band 5A is coincidental with the WIN change. I also suggest that any independent inquiry ought to look at whether channel 12 will be available. I understand that that channel may no longer be required by the Department of Defence after 10 or 11 years. I guess that after that time any increased demand from FM over and above the existing proportion could involve a transfer of channels such as band 3 to VHF 12 at that time. I also understand that band 9A may be available at some time from civil aviation but that this would conflict with Sydney channels and thus not be available. It may well be unreasonable to expect so many people to lose television services which they now receive when we are thinking about giving other people more services. It seems that we ought to be wary about relying on our own Australian experience to date with UHF-which is not a very long one-and that we ought to look closely at the experience on other countries. There are UHF problems, with curvature, hills, buildings and even trees. Shade spots are often unpredictable until the signals start coming out. I welcome the policy of the Government and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to ensure that there are concurrent signals from VHF and UHF for a time. But, if it takes time to work out, surely Channel 12 should be available, and a lot of the worry, turmoil, investment and hard work may have been pointless. I also understand that there could be a higher cost to industry with UHF with more transmitters being required. I am concerned that low income earners, particularly on small rural farms, may suffer because they will be the least likely to pay for new masts or set alterations or, in some cases, for a new transmission service from the remote area service. It may be that, because of the high cost to government of additional transmitters for the ABC, we also ought to consider that possible need. I certainly understand that many new channels will need to go to UHF. My concern is that viewers do not suffer from the change, because many of those who now receive VHF in remote areas will no longer receive it. Also, because it will no longer be economically viable to supply UHF to some of those communities-in fact, many communities of less than a few hundred-we ought to consider how long it will take us to transfer to UHF and how long it will take to find out how successful it is. I earnestly hope that, as a Government, we do consider a closer look at the effect of the change and the necessity for existing channels to change from VHF to UHF. As I said, I welcome the legislation, which takes some important actions on penalties, information gathering powers and other matters. The Government has proposed a penalty for non-payment of licence fees of 20 per cent per annum, because it considers it to be a much more appropriate and reasonable penalty than the suspension or revocation of the licence, which seems completely out of proportion to the offence. In fact, that penalty has never been invoked. On information gathering powers, which I will mention briefly, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will be empowered to seek information from licensees for the purpose of licence fees assessment as well as for the purpose of assessing the financial information which must be supplied to the Tribunal under the Act. The proposed information gathering power is severable from other licence fee amendments and will be a complementary power rather than one which is immediately required. The most important loophole in the Broadcasting and Televisions Act concerning the inability of the ABT to obtain information from licensees for licence fee collection purposes has been remedied in the equalisation Bill. It is interesting that the Federal Court of Australia decided in Amalgamated Televisions Services Pty Ltd v. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that there is no legislation which empowers the Minister or his agent to obtain information specifically for the purposes of the licence fees Acts. Powers to require production of financial information in the Broadcasting Act are, for the purposes of the Act only, although historically the information has also been used to calculate licence fees. In any event, the Broadcasting Act powers do not include the power to obtain information about relevant revenue received by a person other than a licensee, such as a related company, or the power to inspect records. To overcome the problem that no one has the necessary power to collect information for licence fee purposes or to inspect records, Cabinet has agreed to seek to amend the Broadcasting Act to provide information gathering powers for the Minister or a person or body acting on his behalf, which should be specifically tied to the licence fees legislation. I am pleased to support the three Bills. Mr JULL(Fadden)(8.55) —The honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) has spelt out the provisions of these three Bills that are being debated here tonight-the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill-and therefore I will not follow that particular pattern of debate, except to affirm that the Opposition certainly is not opposing these three Bills. However, I would like to spend a few minutes of my time bringing to the attention of the House something that I think is quite relevant to these particular Bills; that is, a crisis that I believe is developing in the radio industry in Australia today. I do not use that term lightly, because I think the crisis is more than just an economic crisis for some of the commercial radio stations at the moment. There is a crisis of planning, and I think that that particular crisis affects radio across the board. It certainly affects the future of Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio and, indeed, the public broadcasting systems as well. All of a sudden technology has well and truly caught up with us. I refer specifically to what has been happening in terms of the FM band and its acceptance in Australia. One thing that Australians do very well is adapt to new technology, and the acceptance of the AM radio band has really been quite remarkable in terms of the time it has taken to take off. If we look back over the last decade I am sure we will see that there have been decisions made by governments of both political persuasions that have helped bring about this crisis that I am talking about tonight. What is virtually happening is that a monopoly is now developing on that FM band of one major commercial radio station. The effects of that are manifold. I said a moment ago that it is not only a financial crisis, although the state of commercial radio in Australia at the moment is the worst that it has been since 1940. The latest figures available-and I think they are available only to 30 June last year-indicate that, in fact, there were a number of stations in a loss situation in Australia. That figure was 43. There were 14 metropolitan radio stations in a loss situation; there were 29 country stations in a loss situation; and I would think that the figures that will be available to the end of this financial year will probably show that the situation has become worse. In terms of the commercial sector, what has happened is that basically the one major commercial FM radio station in the major capital cities has taken so much of the audience that it is now commanding 25 per cent of the advertising revenue. In the case of Sydney or Melbourne seven or eight stations would be sharing what is left of that radio revenue at a time when radio revenues are at least static, if not declining. They are certainly declining in some of the country areas. The announcement by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) just a few weeks ago of the calling of new licences in those particular markets would also indicate that that crisis might extend into some of the major rural areas of Australia as well in the not too distant future. This is not the first time that I have risen in this House to talk about what is happening in terms of the Department's work in the clearing of the FM band and some of the problems that it has been encountering in getting that work done. While I suppose we can sympathise with the pressures that are on the Department, one really wonders how much longer we will have to wait until we see the whole thing fall into place and, indeed, when its reports are finally finished, exactly what option we will have in these particular markets. It would seem that at the most we will have an allocation of about eight frequencies in the FM band to be shared between commercial radio, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and public radio. I believe that that is a nonsense. I have never had successfully explained to me why we should have those particular problems in Australia when one can go into a market such as Los Angeles and pick up 55 stations on the FM band there and when the independent studies of the availability of FM frequency bands in Australia indicate that in capital cities we should be able to get at least 20 frequencies available for the radio spectrum. What I am leading up to tonight is this: I believe we must soon make a decision, if we are going to see a successful, competitive and, most importantly, an innovative radio industry continue in Australia, to allow all broadcasters the option of getting into the FM band as soon as we possibly can. Obviously, there are ramifications for the commercial industry. But even when one looks at what is happening with the ABC's FM station at the moment, one will see good programming. I guess that many people enjoy it. But it is not the channel that is really providing the innovation of which the ABC is capable. One wonders what will be the future of the ABC AM stations five or ten years down the track. Will that wealth of talent, innovation and capacity to bring such diversity of radio entertainment and information to the public that we have today be lost as technology overtakes the whole industry? I really think that that is the crux of my concern with the industry at the moment. It must be, I believe, a priority of whichever government might be in power to open up that FM band to make sure that we do not lose any of that capacity. Of course, the FM band is ideally suited to music. The ABC FM stations are providing classical and jazz music, and we appreciate that. But the innovative programs are not being provided. In regard to the allocation of the initial FM stations the licensees saw the potential of what the FM band could provide. They provided the cheapest possible form of entertainment. They provided modern music-and there is surely a place for modern music on the FM band. They managed to hire radio announcers or presenters who were usually not the top-paid people in the list. They managed to provide a very cheap operation, and the stations are now totally acceptable in the market and are virtually licences to print money. There is probably nothing wrong with that, but I would hate to see the day when that innovation for which the ABC and the commercial industry in Australia have been famous-indeed, in terms of radio we have always been a world leader in what we can produce-is lost because of government inaction. The full effect of FM is pretty obvious, having regard to what is going on at the moment in the radio industry. We read in the papers the tremendous amounts of money that are being paid for FM stations at the moment. It is not for me to judge whether one should believe those reports, or whether they are exaggerated by the Press, as to what these stations are pulling in when they are sold. But I suppose it is an indication of the value of the FM stations to the commercial industry. For example, in recent days it is alleged that 2DAY FM in Sydney was sold for $70m and the 2MMM-3EON combination allegedly went for $92m. That is a huge amount of money. What really gave the game away was the sale of 2UE in Sydney, which has always been regarded as one of the great radio stations of Australia and one of the greatest innovators in the radio industry in the world. It was sold recently by its then owners, the Lamb family, to the Packer organisation, I understand, for about $20m. Of course, once 2DAY FM was put on the market, guess who swooped in at a great rate of knots and bought that station? The Lamb family. They gave away what traditionally had probably been one of the greatest radio stations that this nation has seen. They sold it for that sum. They went to the FM band because they knew what the future of the FM band was. The escalation of the value of these stations is just unbelievable. Mr Hawker —Like 3EON. Mr JULL —Yes, I referred to that. Let us look at stations such as 3UZ, which was probably one of the other great innovators in the commercial radio game. A few years ago 3UZ was sold for only $6m to $8m. Everyone thought that that was probably a fair indication. I would hate to think what the value of that station might be on the market today. I guess that my appeal to the House tonight is that we should really try to get the FM question into perspective. We should make sure that that band is cleared as soon as we possibly can, and the allocations are made available so that as many of those stations as possible are placed on the band as soon as we possibly can, because the youngsters soon will not know what real radio is all about. I think it would be a pretty sad reflection on Australia if our younger generation grew up thinking that all that radio was about was pop music, with a disc jockey who might speak once every 20 to 25 minutes. It is more than that. Radio is a great innovator, a great educator and a great provider of news. I would hate to see that industry and that particular talent lost in Australia, because we can preserve it if we want to. I will conclude my comments at that point. I strongly urge the Government and the Department to see what can be done to open up the FM band to all sections of the industry. If it is done properly there are frequencies that would be available at the moment, especially in the metropolitan areas and in the major provincial areas, which would cover the full spectrum of radio. There would be a future for AM in some of the more remote areas. Let us hope that we do not make a mess of the planning of this very valuable resource. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.06) —I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting the legislation. I have listened to the remarks of the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) and my colleague on this side of the House, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow). I commend them for their intelligent contributions to the debate. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will sum up the debate and talk about the question of conversion to FM. I want to make some remarks with respect to Western Australia. I think that the overall question that the honourable member for Fadden addressed about that market pressure towards the conversion to FM is one about which, obviously, there is a lot of discussion in the industry. I think it would be most appropriate for the Minister to make some reaction to that point. I want to take up an issue that I think is relevant to what the honourable member for Fadden has said-and that is that in Western Australia there is a particular problem in terms of AM coverage due to ground conditions. As the honourable member for Fadden knows, the metropolitan area of Western Australia has basically a sandy soil condition. The consequence is that there is great difficulty in the transmission of AM signals. As has happened in his city of Brisbane, an urban sprawl has developed. We have found that there are outer suburbs that now have great difficulty in getting AM signals. So the issue that the honourable member raised in an Australia-wide context has a Western Australian focus to it. While the answer, at first hand, seems straight forward-that is, the AM stations would seek to convert to FM-it is not always straightforward to provide that solution. But as I indicated, I would like the Minister to make some comment on that, and would welcome his comments. I will speak specifically about the Perth situation. The AM stations have approached me and have said that they are having great transmission difficulties. In a sense, their coverage area is now quite limited, because of the fact that the outer suburban areas cannot receive the signals of stations such as 6IX, 6PM, 6KY and 6PR. Those stations are not getting to those audiences. People in those areas do pick up Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 6WF because it has the most powerful transmitter, and they also pick up 96FM and ABC Stereo FM. So I think that the substance of the point made by the honourable member for Fadden is found in the experience in Perth. The stations have been seeking one of two possible solutions. One is to increase the signal output from their existing AM transmitters. Many of them are at different stages with respect to that proposal. The Federation of Radio Broadcasters is also making an approach for this upgrading towards FM. Without wanting to anticipate an outcome on that, I would want both the House and the community to recognise that I see that as being an important difficulty to be faced by these AM stations, because advertisers on those AM stations know that a lot of the audience in the outer suburbs do not pick up the transmission. As the honourable member for Fadden said, the revenue implications are quite serious. It is an issue that I draw to the attention of the House. I think it is an issue that, clearly, we need to look at, and I anticipate we will be looking at it. It is one that must not be dealt with lightly, because the commercial future of radio stations 6IX, 6KY, 6PM and 6PR is at stake. Suburbs such as Mulalloo, which is in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), get very little AM service, except in more optimal conditions. Then suburbs further to the south in the electorate of my colleague the honourable member for Brand (Ms Fatin) are not getting the AM signal. Even in my own suburb of Trigg, which is probably about 12 kilometres from the centre of town, reception of 6KY and 6PR is very patchy. We need to address this issue and the honourable member for Fadden is quite right in his general remarks. I move to another issue which I believe is also central. I have referred to this matter previously in this chamber, namely the role of Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio. This matter was also mentioned by the honourable member for Fadden. At the moment the various capital cities have ABC Radio 1, Radio National and ABC Stereo FM. I am pleased to see the development of a regional radio network for the ABC. It is my view, and the view of many in this chamber, that people in country areas by and large have been under-served in terms of options. I am pleased to see the ABC moving more energetically towards that goal. One issue we raised was the concern with the networking of ABC Radio 1. There was a move in Western Australia to remove from the program schedule the night music programs, the Country Hour on Radio National and another program called Always on Sunday. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and the ABC in its wisdom restored those. Many people in Western Australia are delighted. People listening to this debate or participating in it will be interested to know that the country and western program on Tuesday nights on 6WF in Perth rates 17 per cent. In ABC terms that is very impressive. Many of those people are in the outer and remote areas of Western Australia. It is very important that the integrity of those programs remains so that we can get to those audiences. That is a view about the importance of people in country areas that is shared on both sides of the chamber. The other issue which it is important to address in this context is the future role of the ABC in its coverage of parliamentary proceedings. That is a matter for a separate report and is a separate issue, but there is a lot of active consideration in the community about what we should be doing sensibly to ensure that we get optimal coverage of Parliament and to ensure that ABC Radio 1 is able to develop its own audiences. I know that in Brisbane Radio 1 does very well in the ratings. That is not the case in Western Australia where Radio 1's 6WF does not perform as well. Obviously we in this place have an objective to give the ABC the best possible opportunity to perform as well as it may. Without anticipating later decisions or deliberations of the Parliament, there is an issue of currency with respect to parliamentary coverage, and that concerns the Sheffield Shield cricket final in Perth tomorrow and on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the deliberations of the Parliament, the Presiding Officers or the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, but I say to my colleagues in this place that I have appreciated their intelligent comments about our intention of trying to get as much cricket coverage as possible. Mr Charles —We are very keen to listen to the cricket. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —We are very keen to listen to the cricket, as my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Isaacs indicates, particularly as Victoria is playing Western Australia. I am very hopeful of the outcome with respect to Western Australia. Mr Duffy —I hope it is a pleasing result. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The fact that we are getting a very good result from it is very much due to the co-operation of all parties and the intelligent contribution of people such as the honourable member for Fadden, my colleague the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby)-who is on the Committee-Senator Watson, the President of the Senate and Mr Speaker. I cannot anticipate the outcome of any committee reports on the matter, but I know that in Western Australia cricket broadcasts rate very highly on Radio 1. I suggest to the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) that that has a lot to do with the success of Western Australia in cricket over the years. I am very keen to see that there is as much opportunity as possible for that cricket contest to be broadcast and I would not want to think that Parliament was impeding that. I know that other members of Parliament, like the honourable member for Charlton, are concerned about the electorate demand in respect of this matter. There is a sense in this place that the broadcasting of Parliament so that it may go directly to the community is important. There is also the recognition that some of the broadcasts that people hear leave a little to be desired. There is a recognition that we should be doing something to give the ABC as many intelligent options as possible to be competitive in the market-place. I close that section of my comments by recognising the contribution of my colleagues. The other issue I have addressed on previous occasions that is still relevant is the concern I have with the subject of ratings in the commercial market. It is brought to my attention on regular occasions that the quality of output of a television station during the ratings period is markedly different from the quality of output of a television station during the non-ratings period. In fact, even a five year old child can tell the difference because the quality of output is low during the non-ratings period and yet during the ratings period the quality of output is very high. We should be telling the industry to lift its game during the non-ratings period. I commend the industry because it has increased its rating periods. The honourable member for Isaacs, who is an intelligent observer of the communications industry as well as a good member of Parliament, has discussed this matter with me. There is a general view in the community that we should ensure that television stations provide the best quality programs over the longest possible period of the year. One should not get A-grade programs, one movie after another, during the ratings period, and not even B-grade but C-grade programs during the non-ratings period. Incidentally, no other industry in this country is allowed to produce two qualities of product and then pretend the products are the same. If one is producing butter, canned peaches or motor vehicles, one cannot produce two qualities of product and pretend they are of both the same quality. One has to admit that one is a lesser quality. Yet the television industry, unfortunately, has developed the practice in the ratings period of producing an A-grade product with many movies, but in the non-ratings period of having reruns and basically very sub-standard programming. The community recognises that. The advertisers have a great interest in increasing the quality of television programming in the non-ratings periods. Clearly, they want to ensure that there are people watching during the non-ratings periods. If all that is on are reruns, they will not get the audiences and, to that extent, advertisers will not get the best value for their dollar. As I said at the outset of my comments on this matter, I recognise that the industry itself is increasing its ratings periods. I believe that we must take the view that the ultimate will be ratings for 52 weeks of the year or to conduct ratings in such a way that the television stations themselves do not know when the ratings are being conducted; that is, to have a proper survey. No survey is legitimate if its results are interfered with, yet in regard to television it is agreed that there is a ratings period and then all the stations deliberately set out to influence the result by putting on higher quality programs. What value is any survey if the outcome is deliberately interfered with? It is a nonsense. The interesting point is that everyone out there in viewerland knows that it is a nonsense and have been pointing it out for a long time. It is a mark of the arrogance of television stations that they think they can get away with this. Why do they think they can conduct a survey and then interfere with the results? That is what they do. They put on higher quality programs and try to increase the viewing audience. What if we were to conduct a survey without high quality programs being put on the screens? What would be the outcome of that exercise? I recommend that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal should look seriously at conducting ratings during the non-ratings periods and getting assessments of the viewing audience during that period to put the industry to the test. Let us make the industry more accountable. Let us conduct surveys that have a legitimacy, or let us perhaps do what is done in the United States of America and use the Nielsen ratings system, which consists of an electronic recording device that records when a television set is on, the station it is tuned to and the period for which it is on-that is, have ratings during an extended period. I return to my original remark. Which other industry can get away with putting out two qualities of products which vary so much in quality? The viewing audience is impatient with the position. Those who run video shops will testify that their hire-out rate of videos during the non-ratings period is astronomical, yet their hire-out rate during the ratings period is very ordinary indeed. What does this mean? It means that the people out there are not silly; in fact they are very intelligent. They say: `Well, it is the non-ratings period, we will go and hire some videos so that at least we can watch something decent on television. Because it is the non-ratings period there is nothing to watch'. It seems to me that that is underselling the Australian audience. I do not think that we in this place should stand by and let that happen. I am not talking about interference by the Parliament in the conduct of the industry; I am telling the industry to lift its game because people out there are impatient with the fact that it is putting out substandard programs during the non-ratings period. In this respect I think that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation deserves commendation in that it tries to have an evenness in the quality of its programs. Some people might well observe that its programs are not of a high enough standard right throughout the year, but at least there is an attempt to be even-handed about it. Let me reflect for a moment upon the prospects of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation-Special Broadcasting Service merger. I think that there is much to be said for that merger. Unfortunately at the moment on Sunday evenings we have on both ABC and SBS television what I would call `the parade of the sweaty conductors'. On both ABC and SBS television on a Sunday evening there are classical music offerings. Surely had we merged those two stations we would not have duplication of programs. I do not deny that there is a role for classical music on television. Of course there is and of course the ABC has a role in providing that. But surely in a city such as Perth, with four television channels, two of them should not offer classical music on a Sunday evening. What else is there for people to watch? If it happens to be in a non-ratings period people not only have those classical music programs on a Sunday evening on ABC and SBS, but they also have nothing of quality to watch on either Channel 7 or Channel 9. What is left for the viewer? He has to go down to the video shop and hire something. Is the television industry serving its market? The answer to that is definitely not. Not only are the ABC and SBS not serving their markets but neither are the commercial channels in those circumstances because people are being undersold. People out there are increasingly impatient. Let us not have this parade of the sweaty conductors on SBS and ABC every Sunday night in tandem. Let us at least have some choice and let us have some choice in respect of commercial television. People might say that my remarks are those of a philistine. They are not. That particular audience of classical music followers is one of the best served audiences in Australia. It has ABC stereo FM, it has concerts that are subsidised by the taxpayer, it has ABC and SBS and sometimes Radio National. Those people get a very healthy serving indeed. Generally speaking, they are people of above average income who can often afford to buy records, compact discs and tapes. My colleague the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who is the Deputy Speaker in this House, has said previously that if we subsidise classical music concerts why should we not subsidise Dire Straits concerts? I make my point by saying that ordinary people in this country deserve some service as well. We must make sure of that. I was disturbed when the ABC was threatening to take the TV program The Winners off the air. That is a program of Victorian Football League highlights. I am delighted to say that we had over 2,500 phone calls to my office in two days. The ABC, being the intelligent organisation that it is and David Hill being an excellent Managing Director, put it right and The Winners will now be back on television on Sunday nights at six o'clock. People in Western Australia, where the program rates 15 per cent, can now watch The Winners again. That applies particularly to people in country areas who, again, are part of that underserviced group. Given that guarantee by the Managing Director of the ABC that The Winners will be back on television, these people will now be able to watch a program that they want to see. I was delighted with the response of ABC viewers and equally delighted with the reaction of the ABC because it responded intelligently to the very important market demand. That is the sort of thing that we should be talking about in respect to our attitude to the communications industry. I wish to make a couple more significant comments on another issue that has been addressed to me from time to time-and that is the concern of radio station 6PR in Perth which, because of its relationship with the Totalisator Agency Board, has an extraordinary heavy racing coverage. Unfortunately, the programming operation of that station is buried under a racing format. Thus one has the absurdity of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), or the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or the Leader of the Opposition at present (Mr Howard) being interviewd on 6PR and then being interrupted while the station cuts to a race at Cranbourne. I am not against racing, but what I am saying is-- Mr Duffy —That is in my electorate. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, I recognise that it is in the electorate of the Minister and I would not want to downplay it but, compared with a major race meeting at Randwick or Flemington, it is somewhat less significant. Thus we have interviews being interrupted by very minor racing events. Radio station 6PR is being buried by its obligations to the TAB. I believe that racing coverage has a substantial role to play, but people in radio station 6PR to whom I have spoken feel that they are being buried under an excessive racing coverage and it is certainly affecting their ratings. That is not healthy in terms of the station's market position. I close by making these comments: There are many important issues relating to the vitality of the broadcasting industry. I referred to the question of AM radio stations in Perth and their coverage. This could be improved and we must look seriously at those options. There is also the question of the ABC's operations, coverage and regional content and I commend it for these. I am delighted to see that the ABC is trying to react positively to the coverage of the Sheffield Shield cricket final in Perth this weekend. I hope that the television industry can improve its ratings, its coverage and the quality of its offerings. In general I must say that this Minister has had a very intelligent and positive attitude towards the communications industry. He is to be commended for his efforts. I believe we will have a very healthy and vital communications industry in the future and much of the credit must lie with the Minister. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.27) —The Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) concern the arrangements relating to the collection of licence fees for companies licensed to broadcast commercial radio and television services. The second reading speech by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) indicated that total licence fees payable by commercial radio and television stations during the year to June 1986 was $68m, but it is interesting to note that this revenue is almost $100m in the Budget estimates for 1986-87. Such an increase is not inconsiderable and this, together with the progressive nature of the fees rates and the general increase in corporate taxation levels to 49 per cent, offers the clearest possible evidence of the anti-business bias of the Hawke Government. Those corporations and other commercial organisations which pay these fees have every right to expect that in meeting government charges of $100m for what amounts to transmission rights, they should have, in return, the means to provide their customers with an efficient and a reliable service. This is certainly not the case for television viewers on Sydney's North Shore. I know that the Minister has a very real appreciation of the difficulties facing those people who try to receive reasonable television pictures from the transmissions in Sydney. I wish to draw attention once again in this House to the fact that the New South Wales Government has been utterly intransigent in dealing with the problem of the location of a translator station on North Head in my electorate. I do not want to go into all the details yet again, but this matter has been going on for a number of years. I know that the Minister is very much aware of the problem but what I would like to see-and I know that the Minister would like to see it too-is a ready appreciation of the reality of the situation by his colleague government in New South Wales whereby those viewers on the coastal shorelines around the Warringah electorate and in the eastern suburbs electorates of Sydney should have access to reasonable television transmission. That is simply not the case at the moment. This argument is discussed in the context of questions of environmental degradation and all those `in' phrases, but what we have at present is an utterly insufferable situation in which people are being put to very great expense in erecting unsightly and dangerous television antennae, often to considerable heights, around those foreshore areas of Sydney. Over a number of years successive administrations in New South Wales have simply refused to face the fact that something must be done about it. I know that the Minister is aware of these problems, has sought to do something about them and is continually seeking a response from the New South Wales Government. I say to this House and to the people of Australia, particularly those people who are affected by the degraded transmissions which they are forced to receive, that television corporations have to pay significant amounts of fees and should expect that their transmissions can be received by the consuming public around the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. Those people are being denied effective television reception simply because the New South Wales Labor Government refuses to accede to a very reasonable request that adequate translator systems be installed on North Head. It is a very clear, very straightforward and very responsible action that the present Federal Government and the present Minister are seeking to have agreed to by the New South Wales Government. I hope that the Minister in his efforts and all the representatives of the people of those areas will seek, in an entirely bipartisan way, to influence the New South Wales Government in its acceptance of a perfectly reasonable and responsible proposition that a translator tower be erected on North Head so that people right around that area can have reasonable television reception. My colleagues will recognise that since the abolition of viewers licence fees the burden on the Federal Budget to provide Australian Broadcasting Corporation services makes these commercial licence fees of increasing significance as a means to offset the costs of the ABC. The legislation also reminds us of the significance of the electorate media in our daily lives. Particularly is this true of television-in its role as an entertainer and in its role in providing information and argument on public matters. Indeed, it is the combination of the entertainment factor and the influence factor which has brought the medium to a point of powerful significance in our lives. I do not think any of us in public life would dispute that fact. We have heard a great deal of talk of populism-the business of making a transaction of power in politics by direct appeal to popular and passing passions of the day. The real populists are not politicians but the owner-managers and and their associates in the media. It has been, I believe, correctly observed in this context that the media is not merely an observer in politics but an active participant. The art, of course, if for the media entrepreneur and his emissaries to conceal this involvement as a primary factor. In the video media nothing is more conducive to viewer suspicion or rejection than the running of a line which is overexposed by its obviousness. There are those who question the imposition of fees. I do not agree. The public is entitled to an investment return in an organisation of radio and television-the ABC. We know that there are a lot of critics of the ABC, and it is true that sometimes its producers do not show the degree of professionalism that we would want, or indeed expect, from Australia's national broadcaster. We see this in the growing resistance to the ABC's 7.30 Report. Since the relegation of the Carleton-Walsh Report to the 10 o'clock spot, in pre-slumber time, the 7.30 Report has had a clear run to dominate the ABC viewer interest. But it is depriving itself of that precise ingredient of support-credibility. We know of the explanation offered by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on his recent interview on the 7.30 Report. We know, and we do not dispute the fact, that selective editing of the interview revealed the techniques of intellectual dishonesty available to the television producer. This incident, in a very clear way, has precipitated the new executive head of the ABC into an unwanted, unsought dialogue within his organisation. Yet, in the mildest way, he has acknowledged the need to accept some measure of responsibility, to administer some measure of rebuke. The fact is that the technique of editing interviews offers tremendous powers to the organisation and, unless there are scrupulous editors and unless there is a scrupulous use of the picture, there can be very little trust in the organisation. It is true that licence fees would be cheaper if there were no ABC, but we do not want that because the ABC attempts, often very successfully, to dig into issues in a way in which the commercial media scarcely attempts. Indeed, when compared with the commercial media, the enterprise is enormous in its sweep and its effort. The consistent failure of commercial media to measure up to it is itself a basic recognition of the special problems that are present in the media use of investigative and commentary power. The licence fees system reminds us of the need for the offsetting expenditure on the ABC to be responsibly justified-I know that the Minister at the table would seek that-but this, I believe, is all the more reason for the ABC to raise its standards, to accept the validity of reasonable complaint and reasoned observation. The 7.30 Report has sometimes gone overboard into excesses of ridiculous commentary. Consider, for example, the recent items on the Queensland Premier, portrayed as a companion piece to the German dictator and to the American President. No standard of objectivity or intellectual honesty is at work here-only prejudice of a silly and dangerous kind. In a way the Government has itself to blame because it is some four months since the plan to remove the executive head and replace him with one of the Prime Minister's preference was instituted-the extraordinary process by which a chairman sacked the executive head and then took over the job. Then has come the most undesirable hiatus. No new chairman has been appointed. I want to emphasise that-no new chairman has been appointed. The result is the one that we witness today. The executive head is now required to play the part of public spokesman, a part which of course should be assigned to the chairman. The fact is that controversy is best handled by the office of chairman. To deprive the organisation of this crucial resource is utterly irresponsible, the more so as we are entering an era of acute political controversy. The public is entitled to expect that the affairs of the ABC will be guided by an impartial, non-executive head. The fact that Mr Hill may enjoy the cut and thrust is beside the point. Obviously he enjoys the cut and thrust. The reality is that it is not good for the executive head to be publicly at the beck and call of the Prime Minister and/or his Press secretary. I call on the Government to proceed urgently to the appointment of a full time chairman of the ABC because only in this way will we introduce greater balance into the public conduct of the affairs of the ABC and will we avoid a situation where, however justified, the executive head of the organisation finds himself levered into a public debate with the hired help. It is important that an appropriate appointment is made to reassure public opinion, to uphold the objectivity of the ABC at a time when the political affairs of the country are reaching a condition of intense controversy and debate. If this does not happen, if we find this situation which I have outlined repeating itself over the weeks and months ahead, the major harm that will result is that the ABC will lose the respect which it has jealously built up over a long period and to which I believe it ought to be entitled for objectivity and freedom from the impetus of government influence. If it does not do this, if we have a continuation of this situation, a very great organisation will come to be questioned and will come to be denigrated in the public mind. This would be, in my view, in the long term a very damaging situation, a very damaging influence, and one which the Party in power would seek to avoid. So I call on the Minister to use his influence, which is considerable, to bring this change about, to proceed urgently to the appointment of a full time chairman of the ABC. Only in this way can we bring about a situation where the ABC is seen to be objective and free of political influence. That is most important in the continuing discussions which will take place in this nation over the weeks, months and years ahead. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(9.40) —Mr Deputy Speaker, until the remarks were made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), you may have been a little confused about what the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) were all about. Mr MacKellar —Not at all. Mr CHARLES —I said: `Until you spoke'. As the honourable member said, the legislation is about radio and television licence fees. As the honourable member also mentioned, last year those licence fees raised around $68 million-just under $61 million for television and $7.3 million for radio. I am informed that the figure for this year is projected to be in the vicinity of $100m. The legislation before the House not only relates to annual radio and television licence fees, but also it also reorganises and cleans up the legislation in a number of very significant administrative ways which I think will be beneficial to everyone in the industry and which will in fact save the Government money in administrative costs. Having said that, I wish to get back to the subject of the one hundred or so million dollars that will be raised by the fees. The honourable member for Warringah said that the legislation related to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I inform the honourable member that it does not relate to the ABC. The moneys raised by these licence fees go into Consolidated Revenue. These moneys have always been collected by governments, conservative or Labor, and have been put into Consolidated Revenue. They have never been offset, and no one has ever suggested that they be offset, against the ABC. Maybe someone can think about that at some stage. We may have raised a point that we can think about. But this never has been the case and I am quite sure that this Government will continue to collect the fees and not offset them. The next conservative government when it gets elected in 20 years time will probably continue to do the same thing. I think there are a number of people in this Parliament-I must say on both sides of the House-who seem to have a great paranoia about the ABC. I find this behaviour never ending. The honourable member for Warringah quite rightly picked up a particular incident that happened on the ABC. But we never really hear about what happens in respect of the commercial stations. I could bring into the House a list as long as one's arm about the incidents that have occurred on commercial stations. In fact, four or five years ago when we were in opposition I made a speech in this House relating to a 60 Minutes program in which Jana Wendt compared Telecom in Australia with Telecom in Canada. She conveniently told half the truth. She conveniently forgot to tell the other half of the truth. I remember quite vividly that she claimed that local calls in Canada were free. She forgot to say that local calls in Canada are very suburban. Basically the calls are free only within a suburb and if one goes outside a suburb one gets into subscriber trunk dialling calls. So in Canada the individual finishes up paying twice as much as people pay in Australia. But she forgot to say that. She totally misrepresented the truth and the facts of the matter when engaging in what was at that time a Telecom bashing exercise. The list goes on. But we do not hear too much about that. Honourable members from both sides of the House scream if something happens on the ABC. We talk about whether the ABC should be funded and whether or not licence fees should be introduced. I think that is all a load of nonsense. Wendy McCarthy is the Acting Chairman of the ABC at present. The complaint which the honourable member for Warringah raised went to her and it was dealt with. The Government will be announcing the name of the new Chairman in the very near future. I would like to get away from the situation where people think of the ABC as some arm of the Government, that we should be controlling it or some such nonsense. That is not the case. It is an independent authority which operates out of taxpayers' funds in contrast with the commercial operators who operate commercially. But in actual fact in the broadcasting industry the ABC is no different to the commercial broadcasters. I have said in this House many times that we should be trying to pull the ABC out of the Public Service sector. We have done that to some extent. But this should happen to a much greater degree because it is not part of the Public Service sector. It is part of the broadcasting industry. If I have one complaint in this respect it is that it will be detrimental to the ABC as a whole if people in that organisation think of themselves as long-term public servants. I would like to make a couple of other points. We have seen recently a great revolution within the broadcasting industry. We have seen companies buying and selling each other, which is not bad in itself. Some of the prices being paid are astronomical. I think the smartest person has been Kerry Packer who has sold out for $1 billion. I suspect that within another 12 months he will probably buy back in for about $500m. I think the new owners probably will be in financial strife trying to finance the operation. I have heard of a radio station that has been bought for about $8.5m and which at the moment is probably not worth any more than $2m or $2.5m. The arithmetic does not add up, and what is happening is quite insane. However, the free marketeers have to live with what is going on. They have to make money. If they cannot they should not come screaming to the Government. They have made their own bed and they should lie in it. I am concerned about the way in which all of the networks do or do not respond to the aspirations and expectations of people. Earlier in the debate we heard the comments by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) about Channel 9 not putting on the final of the Sheffield Shield Cricket-I think it starts tomorrow-when obviously many people want to see it. I believe that that channel has changed its mind to some extent. But many of the networks do not supply appropriate programming over the full 12 months of the year. I think the ratings should be taken over the entire 12 month period. If television stations cannot supply adequate programming they probably should not scream when others say `We will supply it' or when people start talking about cable television or radiated subscription television. They cannot scream about hotel or club television. I would like to make a bargain with them in some respects. I have not mentioned to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) before that I am not too happy about hotel and club television. This type of service worries me to some extent. Today or yesterday I read in a newspaper that someone had sold the football rights to show the last half of Victorian Football League games of a Friday night. One has to go around to the hotel or club or hospitals-about two hospitals in Australia would pay the money for that-to see the games. Basically, the program will be taken by hotels or clubs. Theoretically, we are saying to people: `You can go and watch the football live or if you go down to the pub and get half sloshed you can see it on the big screen and that will be terrific. On the other hand, if you want to stay home with your family you cannot. You have to watch the fifth re-run of Starsky and Hutch'. I think there are dangers in the proliferation of direct broadcasting into hotels and clubs, because in some respects, these outlets provide unfair competition to the normal television channels. On the other hand, as I have mentioned, the television networks must supply adequate programming. If they do not, they will have to cop the competition from elsewhere, whether that be from the clubs or from services such as cable television. Cable television will come along if the networks do not supply adequate programs across Australia and local programs to people in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney or wherever the place may be. I think cable television will be a while down the track but it could be enhanced if the networks do not wake up to themselves. I agree with the quite substantial changes in television that we have seen. The Government made a decision on that last year and we will see the quite extensive legislative changes implemented in the next couple of months. One thing I would like to see is a little more regulation from the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with direction from the Government in regard to programming with a possibility of separating program production, particularly drama program production, as has happened in some places in America where the networks themselves are not allowed to undertake program production. They must buy from outside, from independent production companies. In this sense, having made the networks basically more profitable and stronger, as the new legislation will, I think we should be regulating a little more; demanding a little more from the networks in Australian content and Australian drama; enhancing the program production arena; and helping the very good people in that industry by insisting that much more comes from outside the networks themselves. If the networks are able to bring most productions from birth right through to the finish from within their own set-ups, in the long run we will stifle employment. If basically the entire employment structure is centred around three commercial networks and we are off sides with one or two people within the industry we will basically be out of a job. A number of production companies in Australia will grow if they are given a chance to produce. This will be much better for the industry and it will also flow on to our film industry. In this country and in many places around the world most of the top directors and writers have come into films from television. Some of the great directors of the world have gone down that path. The Bills before the House rearrange the licence fee collection. They are a part of a re-organisation which makes it much better administratively for the Government. In essence, the fees collected are relatively the same under this legislation as they were under the old legislation. This legislation will make their collection administratively better and clean up the Act so that we will be in a much better position to collect these fees in a more appropriate way in future. I do not agree with the honourable member for Warringah who spoke before me about relating these fees to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I think that is a total nonsense. That is a separate issue again which raises the whole question of licence fees which were abolished by the Whitlam Government. As I have said, that is a matter for another debate and one which I do not think I will start this evening. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(9.54) —in reply-Firstly, I would like to make the point that honourable members were fairly wide-ranging in the debate tonight but the Opposition is in accord with the provisions of the Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill, the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No. 2) which are the subject of a cognate debate. I would like to thank those honourable members who have taken part in the debate. The Opposition members were the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) who, of course, is the shadow spokesman for communications, the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). My colleagues on this side of the House were the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles). I would like to respond to the matters raised by some of the speakers, particularly the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein but I will deal with those matters last because he ranged very widely across the whole area of broadcasting. Mr Beale —Spectrum. Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member for Deakin has interjected, across the whole spectrum. I thank him for his technical expertise and for correcting me in that regard. However, let me deal with a couple of the matters that were raised. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro put forward views in relation to VHF and UHF. I have discussed those matters with him at some length in the past. He is a person who puts the point of view of his constituents very strongly and in that sense, he put that view again tonight. He has written to the Senate Select Committee on Television Equalisation on those matters. I do not agree with the views that he has put forward but the matter is still under consideration and the Senate Committee report next week will have something to say about that. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro also touched upon the legislation which is before us tonight, which was merciful, because it was a little difficult really to see what we were on about. Just briefly, I ought to attempt to summarise these Bills. The Broadcasting Amendments Bill is part of a package of measures to introduce greater certainty and more efficient administration in the assessment and collection of radio and television licence fees. In particular, the Bill helps to ensure full and prompt recovery of fees owing to the Commonwealth. The amendments to the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill will be of great value in the collection area as the improvements to the provisions for assessment and collection of licence fees contained in the Bill and others in the package are a common sense administrative improvement rather than any dramatic change in policy direction. That is why I think the Opposition agrees with them, as I indicated earlier. The measures in the radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill again provide greater certainty in the assessment and collection of radio licence fees which will be difficult to circumvent. The honourable member for Warringah made a comment regarding the problems of his constituents on the North Shore of Sydney in relation to television reception. As he said, I am well aware of that. It is a long running saga that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation talked about tonight and it is often said that it is something that has gone on as long as Blue Hills. That matter has and it is a difficult matter. As the honourable member indicated, at the moment there are very strenuous attempts to bring that matter to resolution. He also mentioned the question of taxing mechanisms in these licence fees. As that is one of the things that we have at the moment in the political debate I find it an extraordinary proposition from members on the other side of the House. It is one of those matters where again they want to cut government expenditure. I find it extraordinary to have any suggestions from honourable members opposite that they would not be collecting licence fees in this area in the same way as they did in the past and we have done in government. I do not really know whether the honourable member for Warringah was attempting to make that point strongly, but it is obviously quite ridiculous. The honourable member for Fadden talked about the crisis in radio planning in Australia. He dealt with the ABC and public radio and then moved into the area of commercial licences and particularly the problems with AM and FM. The honourable member talked about the Department-as did those Opposite from time to time and sometimes those on this side of the House-as if it had created this problem. In defence of `the Department', as the honourable member refers to the Department of Communications, a little bit of history ought to be spelled out on the problem that we have in this area. In 1960 the Huxley committee was established to review the use of the radio frequency spectrum by various radio communications services. That committee concluded that there would be no VHF, FM radio services in Australia-a quite extraordinary conclusion, but that was it. It decided to introduce several new channels for tele- vision, including channels 3, 4 and 5. These channels overlapped the area of frequency used internationally for FM radio services. As a result regional television services-both ABC and commercial-frequently employed channels 3, 4 or 5. In 1973-74, following considerable public pressure, the Government of the day, a Labor government, set up an independent inquiry into this matter and the decision was taken to adopt FM radio in Australia. It is worth reminding those opposite that it was not until May 1984 that this Government, with me as Minister, publicly announced that the clearance of channels 3, 4 and 5-known as the band 2 clearance-would proceed. I find it a little galling to hear honourable members opposite complaining about the delay or inaction in the clearance of band 2 when they acted on a determination of a committee which said that there would be no FM radio at all in this country. One wonders what they did about this matter between 1975 and 1983. I suggest that they did precisely nothing, because in that period there was a paralysis in this whole area of broadcasting. The clearance of band 2 will proceed as expeditiously as possible. It ill behoves those opposite to criticise this Government on that issue. The honourable member for Stirling and the honourable member for Isaacs spoke about ratings. It was interesting that they both said that that was a matter for the industry-which it is. The points they made are regularly by many people, and I think that their views would be shared by large areas of the public. Another matter that the honourable member for Stirling mentioned was that of parliamentary broadcasts. He seems to have the view that people out there are not riveted to parliamentary broadcasts and that a parliamentary broadcast is not the first thing that they want to tune in to for the day. He particularly takes the view that they do not want it at breakfast time in Western Australia. That is a quaint view which I do not know how many of the honourable member's colleagues share. If tomorrow were broadcast day in the House of Representatives I wonder whether there would be the same enthusiasm on the part of some honourable members to have the cricket broadcast as there appears to be tonight-particularly by Western Australians, of course. With the injury to Dean Jones, I suppose that they will have a little more enthusiasm than they would have had if Victoria had been fielding a full side. I would now like to deal in some detail with the matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein. As I said earlier, he ranged very widely, and I would like to take up a few points. On the question of the letter which was sent by Aussat Pty Ltd to Remote Commercial Television Services licence holders-the first issue-those licences were issued by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to QSTV and SSE in September 1986. I am advised that Aussat has for some time been negotiating with the licensees to enter into contracts. That is all they have been asked to do. As far as the letter from Aussat is concerned, it is understandable that Aussat wants its contracts for those 30-watt transponders clarified. The honourable member for Goldstein referred to Press articles saying that the licensees are holding off until the results of the Senate Select Committee into Television Equalisation are known. In my view, these considerations have no bearing on the framework within which the RCTS service was conceived. The concept of equalisation surely is not new. It was probed by the Tribunal during those hearings. The Senate Select Committee's decision on equalisation is not intended to affect the concept of RCTS. Those services will be a welcome addition to Australia, and are eagerly awaited by those in the remote and under-served parts of Australia. I think it is about time that the licence holders for those remote commercial tele- vision services made up their minds as to where they are going. If they do not want to provide the service I ask them here and now, as I have asked them time and time again at a meeting last year and again in correspondence as well as in correspondence from Aussat, to make up their minds one way or the other. The honourable member for Goldstein also raised the issue of non-media companies buying into the media. It was in some ways a rather odd matter to raise. He saw the possibility of such interests being likely to be used to bargain with governments for more favourable policies in return for more favourable media treatment. Mr Charles —Free shopping in Southlands. Mr DUFFY —Yes. Assuming that the honourable member for Goldstein really believes that this is a problem, I will deal with a couple of those points. When it is analysed, we see that it is really a matter not for government but for the Broadcasting Tribunal. That tribunal has the power to inquire into whether a licensee is a fit and proper person. It may suspend or revoke a licence as a result of its inquiries. Clearly, such actions as those suggested by the honourable member would, in my view, reflect on a licensee's fitness and propriety. The honourable member for Goldstein did not suggest that anything like that had happened, but he indicated that it could. I think that the powers of the Tribunal are sufficient to handle the sort of situation. The Tribunal takes those powers seriously. Very recently, it made a decision in order to ensure that licensees observed the standards of conduct required by the relevant Act. That covers the matter raised by the honourable member. The honourable member for Goldstein also referred to localism in Melbourne television programming and to related employment matters. He was referring to the decision by John Fairfax and Sons Ltd to program more out of Sydney to Melbourne. The example of that which has been used quite a lot in the Press in the last few days was the decision to axe World of Sport. As I have said before about regional television, there are powers in relation to programming which again are vested in the Broadcasting Tribunal, including comprehensiveness of the licensee service. That is looked at at licence renewal time and can be looked at at other times in the public interest because the ABT has the power to look at the adequate and comprehensive nature of programming and to consider employment as well as programming. The same thing applies to regional television as applies to metropolitan television. If a situation develops in Melbourne in which it is decided that there will be a relay from Sydney and one of the Melbourne stations has the wit to pick up that point and have Melbourne production, if we have ever seen market forces work they will be likely to work in those circumstances. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When we look at the productions that are done locally we see that they rate very well. Whether some people might not think they are terribly good at a highly sophisticated level is really irrelevant because many of the programs are very good and even those that some say are not so good rate well. I think that that problem to which the honourable member for Goldstein adverted in his thoughtful contribution-his contributions are always thoughtful-is not one that will not be sorted out in the market-place. If people consider that Melbourne can be a relay from Sydney they might have a bit of a shock coming because people might vote with their hands by turning off that particular station. Only time will tell about that matter, but I am not as concerned about it as the honourable member for Goldstein suggested he was tonight. The other matter which the honourable member continually raises is the end of the two-station rule. He talked about people being in breach of the law and then dealt with the six months grace period. It ought to be pointed out that when a person has a prescribed interest in three or more commercial licences-this is known colloquially as the two-station rule-a six month grace period, or longer with ABT approval, is allowed for a person to divest. What might happen in the future is something we will have to deal with if and when it happens, but at the moment people are not in breach of the law, as was suggested by the honourable member for Goldstein. However, he did refer to the six month grace period. One of the unfortunate aspects of the contribution of the honourable member for Goldstein probably is that the views stated by him tonight do not reflect the views of the Opposition. As shadow spokesman on communications his position is obviously an extremely difficult one. The communications policy has been written and has been lying around this place for a long while. Everyone knows what it is, but it does not go anywhere. At the moment the policy is being gone over with a fine toothcomb by the dries in order to squeeze some of the moisture out of it. I think that is a pity from the point of view of a sensible debate on future communication policy for this country. The matters raised by the honourable member for Goldstein are always matters which one has to give serious consideration to, but unfortunately they certainly do not reflect the views of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 February, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 25 February, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Madam SPEAKER —I wish to advise the House that, following representations from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has agreed to delay the rebroadcast of Question Time in Western Australia on Monday, 23 March until 8.30 p.m. and on Tuesday, 24 March until 8.15 p.m. The delay will allow the continuous live broadcast of the Sheffield Shield cricket final until the close of play. Mr COBB(Parkes)(10.16) —If there is one policy where this Government has got totally wrong is its stance on trade sanctions with and investment in South Africa. Recently I returned from South Africa and, after talking to a whole host of people every day from sun up to midnight for three weeks, I can report that I did not meet one white, one black, one coloured person or one Indian who was in favour of Australia's policy on trade sanctions and disinvestment. The blacks I spoke to covered a wide range of interests from tribal people to trade union leaders, businessmen, ordinary workers and politicians. I even had lunch with the Mayor of Soweto, Nelson Botile, and Soweto's Chairman of the Management Committee, Mr Radebe. They all totally rejected sanctions and disinvestment of any shape or form whatsoever. Most of them spoke bitterly of the damage it would do to all of them and to black people in particular. They would ask me: `When a factory closes down from sanctions who do you think suffers? Who will lose the most jobs? Who will be in the worst position to get another job? It won't be the whites; it will be the blacks'. I argued that Bishop Tutu, Malcolm Fraser and the Australian Labor Party tell me that black people are prepared to suffer through the disruption and chaos that sanctions would cause so that the Government would be brought to its senses and so abolish the remaining remnants of apartheid. Mr Slipper —What does Buthelezi say? Mr COBB —The opposite. They would reply to me incredulously: `How can putting a black man out of a job help him? His strength will come from economic strength. The Government of Ethiopia survives more comfortably than ever, yet millions are suffering from starvation. How can your Government advocate such a stupid policy? It is a crazy policy, based on ignorance, and will have the opposite effect to what is intended'. They added: `It is amazing, isn't it, that of those who advocate sanctions none will lose their jobs or be affected in any way at all. Tutu or Fraser or your Government have never come to us and sought a mandate from us for what we want. Never. They only patronise us by telling us what they think is best for us, not what we think would be best for us'. It really became apparent to me on my trip that trade and investment, far from propping up apartheid, were the enemies of apartheid. The jobs they create mean that whites have to work alongside blacks. With the wealth that is created from these jobs, South Africa now has the only black middle class on the whole of the African continent. The political power and economic strength of the black people in South Africa, while still having a long way to go, are nevertheless increasing daily. It is common to see blacks in South Africa walking around in two- and three-piece suits, with a pair of $200 shoes on, and it is not uncommon to see them driving Mercedes and BMWs around the streets. Certainly none of them are starving, as tragically they are in many of the black-ruled States to the north. What did surprise me about the black South Africans was that, even though they were all anti-government and anti-sanctions, they were also all anti-sporting boycotts. I had expected a range of opinions on this issue. They told me that sports boycotts were not only ridiculous but also anti-black. They would say: `Look at the South African soccer team. It is totally black. A soccer ball to a black South African is like a cricket bat to a West Indian. We would love to have our national team play against Liverpool or Tottenham Hotspur or an Australian XI, as we would fill every ground in South Africa. But we are not allowed to. It would give black South Africans something to aspire to; it would give our children heroes to look up to and it would give us stature and money, but that is denied us'. Personally, I would love to see a South African boxing team come to Australia. Probably seven out of the 10 or so weight divisions would be filled by black people because they are superior to whites in this area. However, this Government will not allow this to occur. Mr Slipper —Did you know that Tambo is staying with Fraser? Mr COBB —He is. I know that this Government thinks that sporting boycotts, trade sanctions and disinvestment are the correct policies as they will hurt South African whites, and to some extent they do. But the blacks are harmed too and usually far more than the whites. The whites can, and will, survive this nonsense, but the blacks often cannot. I ask this Government to ask the average ordinary South African blacks whether they want sanctions and boycotts. If one did, I can tell the House that the answer would be a resounding no. It should be obvious to everyone that if the blacks really wanted to bring down South African industry they could do this simply by voluntarily withdrawing their labour permanently. Mr Slipper —But they haven't. Mr COBB —Of course not. The reason they do not do this is that they do not want that to occur. When South Africa prospers everyone prospers, including blacks. But if our Government consulted with Buthelezi or Botile, or the average blacks it would realise that. Instead it chooses to consult with the Tutus and the Tambos who represent no one. The Government's policy is wrong and the coalition will abolish trade sanctions. MADAM SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.21) —I would like to bring to the attention of the House tonight a situation where consumers are likely to be denied their right to compensation by major insurance companies. The case concerns a constituent who had the master cylinder for his car's braking system topped up at the local garage. However the wrong oil was used and it was contaminated. As a result the complete braking system had to be replaced. My constituent asked the mechanic to differentiate between work carried out that could be considered normal wear and tear and damage caused by oil. I would point out that the majority of the costs involved were for parts and not labour. Indeed it was a relatively new car and the brakes were in near new condition. The garage admitted liability and passed the account on to its insurers, the City Mutual General Insurance Co. I wrote to City Mutual requesting it to take a responsible position as insurers. However I regret to say that the company refused its obligations and I quote from its letter which states: The matter of the damage to the third party vehicle was investigated thoroughly by competent external assessors and we believe our decision to be correct. In view of this we are not prepare to change our attitude and we now leave it up to . . . as to whether he wishes to take further action. There was no doubt that these competent external assessors were wrong and I advised my constituent to take the matter to the Small Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal found in my constituent's favour and ordered the payment of $1,129. Before the Tribunal the insurance company said it was not responsible because only a small amount of oil was analysed-by the Castrol Oil Co. which confirmed contaminants were present in the oil-and that the effects would have been visible in 24 to 48 hours whereas the brakes failed 10 days after the oil was introduced. I am concerned that my constituent had to wait seven months and go to the trouble he did to get his just compensation in such a straightforward case and would suggest that consumers are being ripped off by actions such as this. Consumers deserve better treatment and insurance companies that eagerly accept premium payments should not try to frustrate their customers. It appears to me that in this case the City Mutual General Insurance Co. has placed a premium on dodging its obligations rather than honouring them. I am informed that it has recently changed its name to Capita and expended a considerable sum of money on corporate advertising. All I can say is that if the company treats its customers like it has my constituent, then it is no wonder it has changed its name. I trust its name change will be matched by a policy change, that of putting the consumer first. While I am talking about consumers, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald on page 15. The title of the article is `How price awareness can pay off'. Ever since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the initiative on prices and appointed the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, to undertake that task on behalf of the Government there has been a lot of cynicism around about what the Government can do about prices. We all know that the Government's powers in relation to prices are very limited indeed. But I believe this article gets it right, because it shows that even without enacting legislation there is a lot that we can do to help people shop more efficiently. The article goes on to point out that a number of supermarkets in Sydney were compared on 10 basic items, with the cheapest coming in with a price of $18.61 compared with the dearest of $28.33. So honourable members can see that just on 10 basic items there is about $10 difference. I would just like to point out to the House some of the differences that occurred in that survey. Sugar is something that Queenslanders know a lot about and have a lot of compassion for and it is a basic necessity- Mr Andrew —The compassion is for the growers. Mr GEAR —Well, they are very compassionate about the growers up there; that is what I meant to say. The lowest price was 77c and the highest price was $1.84, a difference of 239 per cent. So honourable members can see that what the prices task force is doing is pointing out to consumers that in actual fact if they shop at these supermarkets that do offer lower prices they can, through their purchases, force the higher priced supermarkets to put their prices down. Mr Beale —Tell us about biscuits. Mr GEAR —I ask the shadow Minister for prices matters, who is interjecting, just to have a look. There is an article on biscuits in here if the honourable member would like to have a look at it. I say to the honourable gentleman: `Have a look at that article and then you might understand what the Government is doing to try to help people shop more efficiently'. It helps consumers. It helps our constituents and it shows that the Government can do something. MADAM SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.26) —I wish to draw to the attention of the House this evening something of grave concern. In December last year I was contacted by a surgeon in Bundaberg who was treating, as a private patient, a 17-year-old hypsarrhythmia, cerebral palsied child. The patient was referred with a history of gastro-intestinal blood loss. In the opinion of the surgeon, the blood loss was almost certainly from his stomach. The surgeon commenced him on zantac, on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of gastric or oesophageal erosion. The patient has a considerable haemorrhage of 6.6, which is less than 50 per cent blood strength for a 17-year-old. The surgeon has attempted to prescribe this necessary medicine but, in the absence of an endoscopy or a barium meal, this authority was denied. The patient would find it impossible to co-operate with a barium meal and the endoscopy is not a reasonable procedure; in fact it is a dangerous procedure for someone in his condition. There are two points I would like to raise here. Firstly, if this lad were being treated at a public hospital no endoscopy or barium meal would be needed for the surgeon to have the authority to prescribe zantac. Secondly, if the surgeon were treating him as a public patient, the zantac could again be prescribed without the endoscopy or barium meal. However, because his devoted parents have chosen to see this surgeon in a private capacity, they now have to pay for the drug because the rules have now changed and the lad would now have to undergo an endoscopy or barium meal for the zantac to be authorised. There is more to this inconsistent treatment that is worth outlining. The surgeon's clinical diagnosis was obviously highly accurate because the haemorrhage ceased on treatment with zantac. Honourable members should remember that his expert opinion was that a barium meal or endoscopy was dangerous. It is worth mentioning that this medical practitioner bulk bills pensioners, too. In December the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was contacted and asked to grant authority to prescribe in this circumstance. After two letters and two telegrams a reply was forthcoming which said that he could not. He stated that drugs and medical preparations are made available as pharmaceutical benefits on the recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the independent statutory body which advises the Minister on the listing of pharmaceutical benefits. He further stated that conditions relating to the availability of a medication are determined by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and that there is no provision for individuals or for exceptions to be made. Rather than clarify the situation, the advice was tantamount to a cop-out. There is obviously an anomaly here but the Minister avoided the issue and merely offered the surgeon another drug as a possible alternative to zantac, saying that it was for the medical practitioner to decide whether it was suitable. For the record, it was not seen as a suitable medicine, so it is back to square one again. It is incredible to think that this lad's condition can be clinically diagnosed in any one of three circumstances outlined before and that only two of these ways would see him receive the prescribed drug as a pharmaceutical benefit. It appears that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is discriminating against private practice, and yet it is the patient that really suffers. I fail to see how this Minister can bury his head in the sand and ignore this situation which is anomalous and discriminatory. I ask him to support the surgeon's request and representation to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The Minister has the surgeon's name. He has correspondence and telegrams from me on his file. I ask him to look at the subject which I have raised this evening because it is a matter of great concern. I also feel that the authority to interfere between a doctor and his patient is something that should concern all Australians. This doctor believes that zantac is the required treatment and that it is proper for him to have it administered to this patient who, as I mentioned, is cerebral palsied, has hypsarrhythmia and, as such, would find it hard, or indeed dangerous, to take the barium meal or the endoscopy. As I mentioned, that was what the Minister stated was reasonable procedure in these instances. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.31) —Like many Australians, I have been waiting, if not exactly with bated breath with a certain degree of keen anticipation, for the conservative parties to release details of their various policies. Of course, policy issues are well down their list of priorities at the moment, as the Liberals do head count after head count to decide who will be the leader after next Tuesday, and the remaining Queensland Nationals wait for word from Joh and Sir Robert. Of course, the others do not know whether to stay in the coalition or hop out. They do not know what side of the fence to sit on. Details of part of their policy have come to me and I am happy to share them with members of the House and the people of Australia. The details came to me from the Liberal candidate for Throsby. That will be a long term career, will it not? According to the local media, he has the authority of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), to release details of the policy. According to the Liberals, we will have a referenda-led recovery. The candidate said that all of these questions will be put to the people by way of referendum. There will be questions on social, economic and trade union issues. All of these questions will be put to the people of Australia by referendum. A first reading of this policy is a little like reading about Joh's flat tax idea. The idea of putting these things to the people seemed like a fairly good idea and had some appeal. But let us examine it. Referenda have often been held in association with general elections. This has been going on for many years. But three years is a little long for people to wait between referenda. I did some costing of this policy which obviously the Liberals have not done. A referendum held in association with a general election adds between $4m and $5m to the cost of the general election. That cost is irrespective of how many questions are asked. But a referendum that is not held in association with a general election costs between $26m and $27m. If the Liberals want to go to the people with all of these issues-say, four a year-the taxpayers of Australia would have to fork out an extra $108m a year. Over a three year period this would amount to an extra $324m. I am sure that the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate) would be delighted to know that his Department will need an extra $324m. I am not quite sure what the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) would say about this. I would like to pose a few questions because the Liberals have been very vague with the few policies that they have released. Will voting in these four referenda a year be compulsory? Will people be fined if they do not vote? Many people in Australia say to me that we have too many elections. We have Federal elections, State elections and local government elections. Now the Liberals want to give the people four more voting opportunities a year. I know that that will delight all the sporting organisations and many other organisations. A number of schools will be tied up every three months because we will all trot along and vote in a referendum. It will really be very disruptive. I suggest it will go down really well with the people of Australia. The Liberal candidate for Throsby said that he wanted to know people's views on a variety of issues. Any member worth his salt will tell people that his constituents never have any difficulty in letting the member know their views. They have heard of Australia Post and the telephone. I know that members on this side of the House get telephone calls at all hours of the day or night and at the weekends. So there is no need to hold these referenda. Honourable members on this side go out among the people and we ask people what are their views. They tell us their views. The difficulty with this proposal, as all honourable members would say, is that it is very rare that all people think the same way. A lot of views are put to me every weekend when I am in the shopping centres. Often those views are conflicting and contradictory. There is not one point of view that comes across. Frankly, the policy of the Liberals on this referendum proposal is as naive and poorly thought out-of course, it is not costed-as the few policies that we have seen so far. It is no wonder that they are rejected and will continue to be rejected by the vast majority of Australians. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.36) —First of all I want to say-and I do not want to be vindictive or vicious about it-that I think most honourable members would know that I am not afraid to say something to somebody's face outside this chamber that I would say inside the chamber. I feel very bitter about the Tasmanian Wilderness Society. That is well known. My colleagues know that. I believe it is not a political party. It seems to think that it is elected by the people and can make utterances on behalf of the people who I represent in the electorate of Franklin. Mr McVeigh —You speak for Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK —That is right, I speak for Tasmania. Anyway, the other night after I had made a speech on the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill, I was approached by a nice young gentleman who said: `You said something about me in the House'. This occurred in the passageway. I looked at him and said: `Look, kind sir, what I said about you in the House I would be quite game to say at any place in Australia'. Mr McVeigh —Hear, hear! Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member knows that. So I left it at that. I came into the House and noticed that this young gentleman was sitting in the Press gallery. Mr Miles —Whereabouts? Mr GOODLUCK —In the Press gallery. I am told that a member of the Press can invite somebody into that gallery if they have some sort of a pass. Mr Slipper —Who was he? Mr GOODLUCK —Jonathon West, the President of the Wilderness Society in Tasmania. He started the beef and I will finish it. That is very appropriate. Tonight I went into the Parliamentary Library. I saw this gentleman in the Library. As soon as he saw me he ducked down the stairs into the research department. This fellow is the President of the Wilderness Society. I have certain privileges as a parliamentarian. I earned those privileges because the people of Franklin voted for me. They did not vote for this fellow from the Wilderness Society. Therefore, he should not have these privileges when he comes into this Parliament. If he wants to accost me in the passageway and ask about what I said in my speech, he has picked the wrong fellow; I might go back into the ring with this young fellow, but I am a bit old for that these days. I think that that sums up the feeling of many members. If such people represent the Wilderness Society, let them stick to the Wilderness Society office. Let them get to the media. The media loves the Wilderness Society. Members of the media can smile, but that is the case. It gives them all a good press in Tasmania. If my name were Bob Brown, John Salmon or whatever his name is, Norm Sanders-- Mr Slipper —Or Devereux. Mr GOODLUCK —Or Devereux, the Press would paint me up left, right and centre. Let him stay where he is. Let him do his job down there; but he should not come into my domain which is that of an elected member of parliament. If I get defeated, I cannot come back here. I have certain privileges. He must not have the same privileges and the Press should not lead him by the nose when he comes here, because I will fight him every inch of the way. I turn to the price of petrol in Tasmania. It is very expensive in Tasmania. I have heard all the talk by honourable members opposite. My friend, the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks), is a decent fellow. He and I fight on certain issues; he tells me certain things and we talk nicely, but he and I know that it is very difficult to make the price of petrol fair and equitable for all Australians. I will give him a little advice. The Prices Surveillance Authority, which we will dispense with when we get back into government, fixes a maximum wholesale price throughout Australia; it does not vary very much. But the people of Australia, and particularly the people of Tasmania, are getting very uneasy when they see a variance of 20c a litre. Mr Barry Jones —Where is there a variance of 20c? Mr GOODLUCK —I am saying that there is a variance of about 20c a litre from one capital city to another, if one analyses the position carefully. It is absolutely true, and I hope that the Press will print something about that because it is important. The Press need not bother with leadership squabbles. There are no such squabbles. That is a lot of rot. I am thinking about putting my name in shortly. Let us get down to some of these things that affect Australia's consumers, the ordinary average people, some of whom are paying 20c a litre more than others. That is the sort of thing we should be fighting. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.41) —I wish to make a few comments about today's grievance debate when the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) commented on my visit in the last fortnight to the electorate of Grey. He raised a grievance related to the fact that I took a delegation of parliamentarians to the electorate of Grey in order to have consultations, as he said, with farmers in that part of the world and with other members of the community who were feeling the effects of the downturn in commodity prices. I thank the honourable member for the free publicity he gave me on the radio during the debate, but I need to correct some of his statements. He said in his speech: I can tell the House because one of the gentlemen who was at one of the meetings that the honourable member for McMillan convened said that when they got to the question and answer period the chairman, the honourable member for McMillan, stood up and said: `I am sorry, gentlemen, we are out of time and we have to leave'. So the farmers on Eyre Peninsula at that meeting had had the benefit of the point of view of the honourable member for McMillan, but he had not had the benefit of consultation with those farmers. I inform the honourable member for Wakefield that the meeting took approximately one hour and 20 minutes and that for the first hour and 15 minutes the committees sat and listened to delegation after delegation present their cases to the committee. The delegations did not represent only farmers but comprised local government people and bankers. After an hour and 15 minutes of a meeting lasting one hour and 20 minutes, there certainly was plenty of consultation with members of the delegations, some of whom had driven up to 300 miles to see us. They fully appreciated that the country task force of the Prime Minister a is very viable unit of the Government, and that was underlined by the fact that some 150 people turned up at the meeting. On the subject of consultation, I agree that the issues in that area are very serious since the country is marginal wheat land, not the best in Australia. Some farmers in that area are facing great difficulties. The honourable member for Wakefield said those farmers do not need further consultation because they have had consultation and nothing has happened. Let me point to a story that appeared in yesterday's National Farmer dealing with the National Farmers Federation. It said: The National Farmers Federation-belatedly, some claim-has now taken up the debt issue with a vengeance . . . We have been saying this for a long time. These farmers' debt problems have been raised for a long time but all the blame has been aimed at the Government. The farmers' organisation should have taken up the issue with the banks and put forward a scheme to negotiate individually on behalf of these farmers. It should have negotiated a scheme of arrangement to get individual debt problems looked at by the banks. There are several causes of the problem, which are not just related to the downturn of commodity prices or the high level of interest rates. The major cause of the problem in that part of the world was that land prices in the area peaked in 1985. The banks had more money to lend than was responsible and took some drastic decisions in valuations of land properties. I took up one case with the Minister for Community Services and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) about land that was valued in writing at $240,000. Prior to auction, a person was given the okay to borrow $175,000 and at auction he bid to $240,000 on a property with a total income from all crops and outside work of $50,000 before expenses. I regard that as in no way a responsible approach by the banks. I fully support the belated attempt by the National Farmers Federation to make deals of arrangements with the banks. They should support their farmers and not appeal to the Government to put in further public funds which will eventually be written off in debt. We will not throw public funds away like that. There must be negotiation with the banks to put matters in perspective. The honourable member for Wakefield also attacked me about a question I asked of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the improvement in the prices of wool, beef and other primary products. I have with me a document from the National Farmer of yesterday which I would like to table and which indicates that the wool scale has gone off the graph completely. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Leave is granted for the honourable member to table the document. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.47) —In November last year, following yet another disastrous foreign debt announcement, I warned people in my electorate of Fisher of the growing burden being placed upon them by this Federal Labor Government. At the time, the foreign debt stood at the equivalent of $5,560 for every man, women and child in Australia. Now, under the policies of the Government, the debt has ballooned further to the extent that it has now exceeded $100 billion, or $6,000 for every Australian. Using the figures available in November last year, I calculated that the share of this debt owed by the people of the Shire of Caboolture stood at $271.9 million. This figure has now reached nearly $290m. Citizens on Bribie Island alone previously would have had to contribute $40m. This has now grown to nearly $43m. People living in the Pine Rivers Shire now owe $448m, and people in other local authorities wholly or partly within my electorate, such as the Esk, Landsborough, Maroochy, Nanango and Rosalie shires, are similarly affected. Australia's gross foreign debt has now skyrocketed from $36 billion in June 1983, shortly after this Government came to office, to over $100 billion in September 1986. Mr Beale —It was $101,366. Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member is quite correct. This debt rate is now increasing at the rate of $1,300 a second, $4.6 million an hour, $111 million a day. By the time I have concluded this speech, our debt will have increased by $390,000. During the 45 minutes set aside for this adjournment debate, the national debt will have ballooned by over $3.5 million. We are undoubtedly the Argentina of the Pacific. The sad fact of the matter is that the current temporary Government has not come to grips with the problem. Australia cannot afford to let this situation continue. The cost of servicing this debt places a growing burden on the Australian taxpayer. At present merely servicing our foreign debt consumes 40c in every dollar of export income. Recently, Australia celebrated the anniversary of our Treasurer's infamous `banana republic' comments. It would seem that, sadly, despite the assurances of the Labor Party that the Australian economy is in good shape and that interest rates and inflation will fall, it is obvious to all Australians that we are now facing a crisis of truly mammoth proportions. The fact is that Australia now has exploding interest rates, rapidly rising prices, higher taxes for the average family and declining living standards. Under this Government Australians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. Under Labor's mismanagement interest rates have climbed to record or near-record levels, while at the same time most other Western developed countries have experienced falling interest rates. Our prime interest rate, for example, has increased from 13.5 per cent in December 1984 to 18.5 per cent in February 1987. In comparison, over the same period this rate in the United States declined from 11.8 per cent to 7.5 per cent. This clearly affects our standard of living and fails to provide any incentive whatsoever for business to invest. Mortgage repayments have also exploded. Since December 1984 average monthly mortgage repayments have increased by $172 a month for a typical $50,000, 25-year-term loan. In March 1986, 21.3 per cent of median family income was spent on home loan repayments. Now, in less than 12 months, this figure has increased alarmingly, to 26.7 per cent. Now bank home loan interest rates have risen from 11.5 per cent to 15.5 per cent and, in some cases, to 17.5 per cent and almost half a million Australians live in caravan parks, with a further 100,000 permanently or temporarily homeless. Under Labor, this country is in real trouble. Labor should hang its head in shame at the growing crisis facing the average Australian. As a recent publication stated: Who is to blame for this economic shambles? It is patently obvious that the ALP Government is to blame. The Federal Government is a government of mismanagement and failure, without any direction or workable solutions to the economic crisis. Madam Speaker, the Government should resign. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.52) —There has been another accident at the Lucas Heights reactor. Tonight I want to raise the legitimate concern of the residents of the Sutherland Shire who for years and years have asked unanswered questions of Lucas Heights and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and who have a very genuine concern about the safety of the Lucas Heights reactor. What has happened on this occasion? The Atomic Energy Commission has said that there are no consequences for the public. It has said that the amount of radioactivity released during last night's fire at the Lucas Heights reactor would have `insignificant consequences' for the public. There appears to have been a small release of `noble' gases. I am not sure what that means and I am not sure that any resident of the Sutherland Shire knows what that means. Mr Downer —Does it matter? Ms McHUGH —Does it matter! It would matter if the honourable member were a resident of the Sutherland Shire. I am sick and tired of the residents of the Sutherland Shire being disparaged for their very legitimate concerns. I speak tonight for the rights of the citizens of Sutherland. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has been reported as saying that information available to the public about the fire at Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was manifestly inadequate and insufficient. It always has been. Let us look at what happened last night when a resident tried to find out what was going on. Mrs Heather Rice, who realised that something was going on only when she heard about it on the radio, tried to find out how serious the situation was. She did not get much information. She discovered that neither the Department of Health, nor the Sutherland Shire Council, nor the State Pollution Control Commission knew anything about it. She said that the Atomic Energy Commission had decided alone that this was not an emergency and this was unacceptable to the residents of the Sutherland Shire. She said that those residents were quite alarmed about being left high and dry over the reported release of radioactive material during the fire. She heard about it on the radio and tried everything she could to see whether the authorities that are supposed to take control had done so and were able to inform the public about what was happening. This matters because there have been 544 reported accidents in the history of this 28-year-old reactor. These accidents have involved workers and others inside the establishment. Let us have a look at what has happened in the past when there has been an accident. In July 1984 there was a release of uranium hexaflouride at Lucas Heights. I took a whole month for the public at large to be informed that there had been an accident at Lucas Heights. Last night people knew that there had been an accident because there were seven fire engines at the site. They knew that something was going on. The new Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation legislation was designed to see that this sort of thing never happens again. But it is happening now; it happened last night. When the accident occurred in 1984 an inquiry was instituted by the Atomic Energy Commission itself-a self-regulatory inquiry. An analysis of the report on that inquiry has shown that a number of important issues related to accidents at the site were disturbing and had received little public attention. For instance, the investigating committee found at that time that there were serious breaches of procedure in setting up and operating the experiment concerned. What was the experiment being carried on at Lucas Heights yesterday? Were the procedures carried out properly or were there serious breaches? More importantly, will the residents of the Sutherland Shire be informed? Another part of the analysis of the report in 1984 says that of the various actions taken by the Atomic Energy Commission following the release of hexafluoride, notification of authorities and the public was clearly deficient, although that, of course, was played down within the report. For example, it says: It is reasonable to expect that the State Pollution Control Commission should have been alerted but in fact it was not. I appeal to the Atomic Energy Commission, about to be ANSTO, that it informs directly, and in language clearly understandable to lay people, what is going on at Lucas Heights, because if anyone talks about removing that reactor to Jervis Bay or anywhere else the residents of those areas, just like the residents of Sutherland Shire, will demand to have accurate facts on what is going out. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.56) —I am not going to take up the time of the House indulging in the sorts of exercises the Left of the Labor Party of Australia indulge in-that is, spreading fear and terror through the community by exaggerating, by mammoth degree, problems of a nuclear kind in the community. Those people have been doing that for years and years, and it is a process of intellectual terrorism which is having a real impact on the young and impressionable people of this country. We would expect parliamentarians to be more responsible than that. I am going to be responsible tonight because I am going to talk about the problems of nursing homes in my own electorate and, in particular, in the town of Strathalbyn, one of the most beautiful towns in the Adelaide hills. There is, however, in that town a very great need for some nursing home accommodation, and some time ago an application was put to the Department of Community Services for approval, in principle, for a capital grant for the building of a nursing home. At the time I not only supported that application but congratulated the Government on giving that approval in principle, because the Government did show at that time that it recognised the very pressing need in Strathalbyn for more nursing home beds. So enthusiastic were the good people of Strathalbyn about getting a nursing home, so enthusiastic were those people to help the elderly in the community, that they raised up to a quarter of a million dollars as a contribution to the building of this nursing home. It is with a very great degree of regret that I inform the House tonight that the Department of Community Services has now said that it is going to change the criteria for providing nursing home accommodation in that part of my electorate. Strathalbyn is undeniably an extremely rural area. By any criterion one could imagine, Strathalbyn is rural; and yet what the Department of Community Services in Canberra is saying it wants to do is to include Strathalbyn in a metropolitan zone. The Department would take the very rural characteristics of Strathalbyn away from it, at least as far as nursing home accommodation is concerned, and lump it in with the seaside suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide. The bottom line of this change in government policy is that Strathalbyn will end up not getting the nursing home beds that it so desperately needs. By including Strathalbyn in the metropolitan area, we find that the ratio of people over the age of 70 per thousand of the population substantially changes, and it changes in a way that means that Strathalbyn and all of that district, by that criterion, turns out to be well serviced for nursing home beds. If one separates Strathalbyn from that region, if one recognises that Strathalbyn is a genuinely rural area and one includes it in the Adelaide hills region, which it was in before, Strathalbyn would, most certainly, be eligible for funding for nursing homebeds. Under the criteria, Strathalbyn is not going to get those beds. I appeal to the Minister for Community Services (Mr Hurford) to review what the Department in Canberra is proposing, to take on board the recommendations which are coming from the Adelaide office of the Department of Community Services, from the Director of that Department downwards, to take on board the proposals and recommendations that are being put forward by the Strathalbyn Memorial Hospital and by the people of that district, to ensure that there will be proper nursing home accommodation in Strathalbyn. The problem now is that if that nursing home accommodation is not provided, either elderly people in that community will be taking up hospital beds in the Memorial Hospital, which is hardly the purpose that hospital was built for, or they will be transferred to metropolitan Adelaide. Anybody who lives in my electorate knows that the last place he wants to move to is the metropolitan area. The beauty of the environment they live in, with the proximity of their friends and relations and the supportive community, is something that they have a right to continue with. I hope very much that the Minister and the Government will reverse the decision which seems almost to have been made by the Department. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Nehl to move- That this House- (1) deplores the failure of the Hawke Government and the NSW Government to make an irrevocable public commitment to upgrade the Pacific Highway to the standard of a 4 lane, divided, dual carriageway along its entire length from Sydney to Brisbane, and (2) calls for the entire North Coast section of the Highway, especially between Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour, to be upgraded as a matter of urgency, so as to dramatically reduce the unacceptably high level of lost lives, injuries and property damage presently resulting from motor accidents, as well as, other economic costs to the entire Australian community. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 19 March 1987: Public Service Act-Determinations-1987-Nos. 11, 12. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 5080) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Does the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC) plan for the development of the Belconnen Town Centre reverse previous NCDC policy by endorsing foreshore development at Emu Bank on Lake Ginninderra. (2) What is the population of the area to be served by the Belconnen Town Centre development plan. (3) Is he able to say whether the ACT Trades and Labor Council has placed an industrial ban on further development of the foreshore of Lake Ginninderra at the request of an organisation called the Ginninderra Community Council. (4) Is he able to say what the approximate size is of the membership of the Ginninderra Community Council. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The recently published plan for the Emu Bank portion of the Lake Ginninderra foreshores maintains the existing policy for that land. Insofar as any reversal of policy might be construed, the Plan varies proposals put forward for public comment which indicated that there would be no development of this land (known as Section 65) adjacent to the lake foreshores. The approach in the Draft Plan followed suggestions by some community groups, but the weight of opinion which emerged during the public review of the Draft Plan was that the original intention to develop be retained. (2) The short term population forecast (1988-90) for the District of Belconnen is for 87,500 people. There is potential for this to increase over the longer term dependent on land on the periphery of the Town being developed for urban use. The maximum anticipated level is approximately 100,000. (3) Bans on further development on the foreshore of Lake Ginninderra were previously imposed by the ACT Trades and Labor Council. Since the publication of the Plan, no information has come to hand concerning the attitude of the Trades and Labor Council. (4) No. I am advised by the Assistant Commissioner of the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission that the Ginninderra Community Council is not registered under legislation administered by that Commission. (Question No. 5127) Mr Wright asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 February 1987: (1) What are the details of the Commonwealth's financial contribution to the Special Sugar Agreement with sugar growers and the Queensland Government. (2) Is he able to say what is the contribution in dollar terms from the Queensland Government to that agreement and for what use is the money provided by the Queensland Government to be put. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the claims by the Premier of Queensland that the Queensland Government has provided most of the money available to growers and that the delay in finalising the arrangement was the fault of the Commonwealth. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government has agreed to provide funds up to a nominal amount of $18 million over 3 years ending 30 June 1989 for adjustment assistance for sugar growers in the form of interest subsidies and lump sum interest subsidy grants, including $1 million in interest subsidies and grants in respect of renegotiation of existing carry on loans funded by the Queensland Government. (2) The Queensland Government has agreed to provide $7 million over 3 years ending 30 June 1989 for adjustment assistance for sugar growers in the form of interest subsidies and lump sum interest subsidy grants, including $2 million in interest subsidies and grants in respect of renegotiation of existing carry on loans funded by the Queensland Government. (3) The answers to (1) and (2) above confirm that the Commonwealth will provide the larger part of the assistance to growers. The delay in finalising the arrangements for grower assistance was due to the necessity to draw up a new Commonwealth/Queensland agreement that would provide assistance to growers under a more flexible program than the existing Rural Adjustment Scheme, as was requested by growers and in accordance with the principles agreed between the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments under the Sugar Industry Plan. This agreement has now been signed and Commonwealth funds have been made available. It should be noted that claims made by the Premier of Queensland usually need to be examined for veracity.