Tuesday, 20 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Discrimination against Women To the Honourable The President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respecfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: 1. Undue cost to the nation at this time. 2. ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. 3. The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. 4. The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from three citizens), Robertson (from two citizens ) and Ryan (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That many services provided by the Commonwealth of Australia for disabled persons are not accessible or appropriate to people with multiple sclerosis. This includes sheltered workshops and facilities designed for geriatric patients in private nursing homes. That, being members of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Victoria who have multiple sclerosis or other allied diseases we believe the accommodation, day care, domiciliary support and family support services being promoted by the M.S. S.V. are worthwhile, even vital, and need further government support. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Expedite the implementation of a home attendant care scheme which will also reduce inappropriate and costly admissions to the nursing home and public health sector. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 49 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill re-affirms the commitment of the Government in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women through: 1. Recognition of the dignity of all humans through equal rights for men and women. 2. Supporting the rights of women to choose education, employment and lifestyles beyond the traditional stereotyped concepts of the roles of men and women. The legislation in no way denies the validity of any particular role including traditional parental roles. 3. Providing legislative protection against discrimination to women living in States which have no existing discrimination legislation. 4. By acknowledging the discriminatory nature of sexual harrassment an occupational health hazard which seriously affects many women in employment. We the undersigned believe that passage of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983, will provide a legislative base to honour the principles of equality incorporated in the U N Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against women. Your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senate will support the legislation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 13 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. by Senator Ryan (from 34 citizens). Petitions received. Withdrawal of Notice of Motion Senator COATES(Tasmania) —In accordance with notice of intention to withdraw, given on 15 September 1983, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name, for the disallowance of the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 38 and made under the Customs Act 1901. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that Senate elections and House of Representatives elections are held at the same time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to extend the duration of the House of Representatives and the terms of service of senators. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Is it a fact that the Industries Assistance Commission recommended on 26 April that action be taken to correct an anomalous situation whereby one of the world' s largest steel wire producers-Korea-was accorded preferential tariff treatment? Is it a fact that, because of the urgency of the situation and the number of jobs at stake, the previous Government had placed a 45-day time limit on the IAC 's inquiry and report? Is the Minister aware that, almost five months later, the Department of Trade is still preventing action being taken to correct the anomaly? Is the Minister concerned at the delay? What action can or will he take to resolve the situation? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the situation described by Senator Chaney. I cannot confirm the exact dates but I do not in any sense seek to avoid the implications of the question by referring to the dates. The question of the operation of the Australian system of tariff preference and the preferences to be accorded to countries known as 'developing countries' for the purpose of the preference system is a matter for determination by myself and the Minister for Trade. I can only say that I am very much aware of the urgency of the situation. I personally am disturbed by the delays. I had a discussion with the Minister for Trade about the matter last week. I hope to see him again today on the same matter with a view to its being resolved this week. Senator SIBRAA —I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the announcement last week of the Government's decision to encourage the development of a substantial venture capital market in Australia. Is the Minister aware of criticism of the Government's proposal by the Sydney Morning Herald last Friday? Will the Minister explain how the Government's proposals will operate to stimulate investment in high technology industries? Senator BUTTON —The Sydney Morning Herald article, which had the flamboyant title 'Garbage in, garbage out', attracted my attention because it was not the normal heading which one finds in an editorial in such a distinguished newspaper as the Sydney Morning Herald. Senator Chaney —Unless they are writing about your policies. Senator BUTTON —That is a very convenient interjection for me to make one or two points about the policy which the Government has adopted in relation to this matter. In terms of encouraging venture capital for the support and encouragement of high technology industries, Australia is probably about eight years behind the times-a coincidence which, if one studies who was in government at the time, I cannot avoid drawing to the attention of the Senate. After a number of years of persistent effort by the current Minister for Science and Technology, the Fraser Government in 1980-81 established a committee of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences to examine this question. That committee reported earlier this year. I must say that the committee's work, which has in essence been adopted by the Government, is a refreshing innovation in terms of the situation in Australian industry generally. I wish to refer the Senate to what the Espie High Technology Financing Committee concluded on the basic issue which is now of concern and which was addressed in the Sydney Morning Herald. Senator Watson —Who set it up? Senator BUTTON —I just gave the Fraser Government credit for that. It set up that Committee. All I was complaining about was that it was set up seven years too late. That is a classic sort of lead time for Liberal Party governments in Australia. Senator Lewis —Why didn't Gough do it? Senator BUTTON —If Opposition senators want to presist with interjections, I feel nothing but assisted by them. If they want to raise points which have already been dealt with in the answer, they can go ahead. The Espie Committee concluded: This Committee knows of no country which has succeeded in establishing a climate for investment in high technology enterprises without the Government taking positive action and, at a minimum, adopting a catalytic role. Those honourable senators who have studied the Espie report will note that in its concluding chapters it draws attention to the government assistance provided for the establishment of high technology industries and particularly the attraction of venture capital into these areas in about a dozen countries in all , all of which have had much better performances in these matters, with the possible exception of the Republic of Ireland, than has Australia. In relation to the Sydney Morning Herald article-- Senator Peter Rae —What about the IAC report, before you get to the Sydney Morning Herald? The PRESIDENT —Order! I invite the Minister to respond to Senator Sibraa's question. Senator BUTTON —I have no doubt that Senator Rae will have a question later, and he can ask it then. In response to Senator Sibraa's question, let me say that there seems to be a quite fundamental misunderstanding in the Sydney Morning Herald article because it suggests that, as a result of the adoption of the program by the Government and its announcement last week, some $43m will be available to high technology industries and the assumption in the editorial is that that will be done in terms of grants to specific industries. That is not correct. What will be provided under the proposals adopted by the Government is a capacity for the establishment of management investment companies which will provide two things in the high technology area. The first will be finance which will not be government finance but private sector finance. The second will be management expertise. They are the two things which have been identified by Espie and numerous other critics as most lacking in this area. The catalytic role provided by government, to use the Espie expression, is of course a system of tax concessions to those companies. Those are the matters which are fundamental and which seem to have been fundamentally misunderstood in the Sydney Morning Herald article. The suggestion implicit in the Sydney Morning Herald article, and indeed in the interjection made by Senator Peter Rae, is that these things are best left to market forces. That is what we have been told for the last 10 years in Australia . No other country has seen fit to take that course in relation to the development of high technology industries. All of them have had a more successful record than Australia. If that is the view of members of the Opposition I would be pleased to hear them advocate it in public. It has not been a very successful course of development anywhere else and it would not be successful in Australia. When one looks at the situation revealed by the Espie report, I think it is very important to see what will in fact be provided in respect of high technology industries by the system the Government has adopted. We as a government look forward to this system attracting capital into high technology areas. If we can do that it will be a vast improvement on the general investment situation which obtains in Australian industry. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the reported determination of the Australian Government to water down or weaken the existing policy relating to sporting contacts with South Africa. I ask: Firstly, does the Government not agree that the implementation of such a policy will dismay opponents of apartheid throughout the world unless it is accompanied by the imposition of an effective code of conduct applicable to Australian business and trading interests operating in South Africa? Secondly, will the investigations into such a code of conduct, for which I have pressed for several years and which the Foreign Minister promised to expedite in his announcement of 5 June 1983, be brought to speedy fruition so that Australia can be seen to be evenhanded and effective in its opposition to apartheid? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not accept the suggestion that the Government is in any way proposing to water down its policy concerning sporting ties with South Africa. It is the case that in June the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced that Cabinet had called for a further review of the question of sporting links with South Africa. So far as I am aware, that review is still under way. Senator Missen —He went further than that. Senator GARETH EVANS —Is Senator Missen talking about the matter of individuals? Senator Missen —Codes of conduct. Senator GARETH EVANS —Until the results of that review are completed, I do not think it is possible for me to give a more substantial answer than that on behalf of the Minister, except to say that the Government's strong commitment to the Gleneagles declaration on apartheid and sport remains quite undiminished. It is the Government's belief that sport in South Africa continues to be manifestly subject to the inequalities of apartheid. Even though some changes may have been introduced, sport cannot be viewed in isolation. The Government is not persuaded that normal sport can take place in a thoroughly abnormal, indeed pathological, environment in that country. To the extent that other questions have been raised about codes of conduct and the like, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and get an early reply for the honourable senator. Senator RICHARDSON —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission to proceed with plans to phase down research work on uranium enrichment at Lucas Heights in Sydney? To what extent do these plans affect the current research work being undertaken at Lucas Heights? Will there be an immediate termination of experimental work that has recently commenced? Will any jobs be lost at Lucas Heights through staff cuts, natural attrition or transfer, as a result of these plans? What is the likely future of Lucas Heights, which currently employs about 1,500 people? Senator WALSH —The Department of Resources and Energy and those statutory authorities under its control, of which the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is one, were obliged by preliminary decision of the Expenditure Review Committee to live within financial ceilings on expenditure this year. Those ceilings were more stringent than they otherwise would have been had we not inherited such a desperate financial situation from the irresponsible Government which preceded us and had the present Government and the public alike not been misled by the discredited former Treasurer as to the size of the impending deficit which this Government faced when it came into office. Given the severe financial constraints which required the Government to impose ceilings on expenditure by the Atomic Energy Commission and any number of other government departments and statutory authorities, it was necessary to reorder the spending priorities within the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of that reordering it was decided that the expansion of the uranium enrichment research or experimental program which had been scheduled previously would not take place . It was decided also that a somewhat greater amount than had been allocated in the previous year would be allocated for the Synroc program. Those decisions were taken by the Government in what it saw to be a responsible way and in areas which were compatible with the policy of the Australian Labor Party. Regarding the employment of officers of the AEC, I thought the figure was somewhat below 1,500. I thought it was more like 1,200, but I am not certain of that. No jobs have been lost as a result of that reordering of priorities within the AEC, although in any year there is some attrition. I expect that there has been some attrition within the AEC this year. Returning specifically to the enrichment program which had been previously scheduled for expansion, a test bed -if I remember the correct technical term-is still being constructed or has been constructed, but the expansion of that test bed facility to what was called a cascade will not proceed, at least in this year. As to the longer term future of the Atomic Energy Commission, that is one of the matters which will be to some extent under review by the Government when the entire nuclear policy is reviewed . Senator SCOTT —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy agree with the statement by the Federal member for Bendigo that no decision has yet been taken by the Government on the continuation of the $80 a tonne liquefied petroleum gas subsidy beyond March 1984? If so, when will a decision be made? Was it not an election undertaking that the subsidy would continue for another three years at least? Senator WALSH —It was certainly not an election undertaking by me that the subsidy would continue for another three years at least, and I was the responsible shadow Minister at the time; nor was it, as far as I am aware, an undertaking given by anyone else in a position of responsibility in the Australian Labor Party or by any other candidate. But since I have not monitored every newspaper or listened to the broadcasts of every radio station in Australia I could not be absolutely certain about that. It is correct, as the honourable member for Bendigo is reported by Senator Scott to have stated, that no decision has yet been taken by the Government in respect of the future of the subsidy beyond 31 March 1984 when the current legislation expires. One proposition which has been put to the Government, particularly by local government authorities which run, as business undertakings, reticulated gas supplies in substantial country towns and also supply bottled gas in substantial country towns and which are obliged each year to strike rates on an annual basis , is that there be more stability and predictability in price separate from the absolute level of prices. There is a budgetary problem in that the local authority must strike a rate of charges for the entire year. If the price increases substantially in mid-year those local authorities cannot in that same financial year recover the higher cost from their customers. One of the options which the Government is considering-it was originally intended that a decision would be made before the end of this calendar year but it may be deferred until early 1984-is a ceiling price proposal rather than the continuation of the subsidy in order better to accommodate the needs of the local government authorities. I add, in closing, that the discredited former Prime Minister, even though he was running amok with the cheque book in the desperate days of his final election campaign, did not promise to continue that subsidy of $80 a tonne beyond 31 March 1984. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. What are the rules governing the granting of the special benefit to unemployed persons under 16 years of age? Is the Minister aware that some 15-year-olds without other means of support are being denied benefits? Senator GRIMES —I will make available to Senator Zakharov and anyone else the guidelines pertaining to the granting of the special benefit to persons under 16 years of age. The benefit is available particularly to those who have, in fact, been in the work force and who qualify in terms of the stringent conditions which surround the special benefit. We have a difficult situation in this country where people of the age of 15 are permitted to leave school-sometimes at the age of 14 in many States-and yet are not provided for under the social security system. By the same token, under the laws in various States such children are considered to be legally the responsibility of their parents. It is for this reason, in addition to the fact that we do not think it is satisfactory for children from the age of 15 to the age of about 19 to have only the choice, essentially, of receiving either a job or unemployment benefit, that the Government is looking at the income support for all our young people to see whether we cannot satisfactorily rationalise the many and varied systems of payments available for income support and to see whether we cannot improve the low retention rate of these young people in our education system. Senator MASON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. It concerns the assets test on pensions and especially the predicament of persons who have been on invalid pensions but who, by the passage of time, become eligible for the age pension instead. Does the Minister agree that this transition at age 60 for a woman pensioner, which is a particular case that I have in mind, does not reduce the financial demands on that person because of her invalid condition? Is it not the case that such persons who have small sums invested to help meet additional medical and other costs due to their invalid condition are now to be severely penalised? Since such a person is unlikely to want to own a caravan or a boat, will the Government look carefully again at the whole structure of the assets test, perhaps on a basis which would except assets of any kind up to a certain money value? If the Minister is not prepared to do that, how does he propose to deal with the problem of the invalid aged I have mentioned? Senator GRIMES —I thank Senator Mason for his question. Yes, I agree that when an invalid turns 60 his or her financial needs do not change. No, I do not agree that the sums invested by the lady he referred to will be, I think the term was devastated, by the assets test. Invalid pensioners will be subjected to the assets test in the same manner as age, service and widow pensioners and supporting parent beneficiaries. There will be no change in their treatment under the means test on attaining age pension age. I do not know where Senator Mason got the impression that there would be. The allowable assets limits that we have suggested, of $17,100 for a single person and $28,500 for a married couple, I believe will be adequate to meet medical and other costs due to invalidity under the existing system. They will also be assisted by the introduction of Medicare which will provide basic hospital and medical services at that time. Even beyond these limits, the pensioner entitlement reduces by $9. 60 a week for each additional $10,000 held in assessable assets-I emphasise assessable assets-so that the entitlement is in fact not completely lost until asset holdings reach over $106,000 for a single person and $177,000 for a married couple. I share Senator Mason's view that invalidity or disability is a very expensive lifestyle and that there is a good argument for people who are disabled to receive either an extra payment to compensate them for the extra costs of that disability or extra provisions through the provision of aids, special accommodation, et cetera. If we are to proceed to provide that payment through a disability payment or to provide increased funds through assistance for housing and aids for disability, et cetera, we will need the funds to do so. It is to assist this group of people-low income pensioners, low income earners in particular, those who do not have homes and those who need help in providing for themselves private rental accommodation-that we intend to introduce the reforms to recoup for the revenue the moneys that have been leached out of the system by those who have been circumventing the income test till now. Senator MASON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of what the Minister said, and I take his point, will he answer the third part of my question? I concede the point that moneys have to be transferred, one might say, to the more needy parts of the community. I will ask the Minister the question again and I think he will see the point. Since such a person is unlikely to want to own a caravan or a boat, will the Government look carefully again at the whole structure of the assets test, perhaps on a basis which would except assets of any kind up to a certain money value? After all, the Government can still get the money diversion if it does that. Senator GRIMES —Yes. We are continuing to review our proposals for the assets test in consultation with various groups. I point out that the reason for excluding personal effects of the type Senator Mason mentioned is that to set out to assess all these personal effects, which are perhaps held in the home, and effects such as caravans and cars, would first of all provide a very large administrative problem and, secondly, be unnecessarily intrusive into persons' lives. I concede that it may be a reasonable proposal to do as Senator Mason suggests and provide extra payments for those people to make up for their disability or provide an extra allowance on top of the ordinary means test or the incomes test plus assests test for those with a disability. It is a proposal which I believe should be looked at in the review of the whole area of assistance to handicapped persons and not be just picked out as an item in the specific assets test. I point out that, at the moment, invalid pensioners are treated in exactly the same way as other pensioners. Their treatment will not be any different under the assets test from what it was under the income test. Sure, their non- assessable assets will be counted; but they will not be singled out in any way, nor will they be penalised in any way. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and concerns the proposed Darwin-Alice Springs railway and the independent inquiry which has been set up by the Government to look into the matter. The Minister is no doubt well aware of the enormous interest in the project in my home State of South Australia and of the considerable benefits it will bring to the State in terms of employment generation and in assisting industries in the Iron Triangle region. When can we expect the inquiry to be completed? When can we anticipate a final decision to be made on whether the railway will proceed? Senator GIETZELT —The Alice Springs-Darwin railway and the problems of transport generally in that region have led to a number of questions being raised during the early session of this Parliament, as well as in this second session. I have indicated the Government's commitment to a considerable improvement in transport and communications generally in that region. Senator Foreman asked about the inquiry which the Commonwealth Government has initiated as a result of representations made to it by the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, who has expressed a more than average interest in assisting both the Northern Territory Government and the Australian Government to expedite that rail link and look at the problems of transport generally within the region. Negotiations between the Commonwealth and the South Australian and Northern Territory governments are proceeding to establish terms of reference acceptable to the Commonwealth and those two other governments. When those terms of reference are finally agreed to , the inquiry will proceed with a view to the Commonwealth assisting in the provision of that very important facility. I reiterate what I said on the last occasion: The Commonwealth does not resile from its responsibility to provide this rail service but, having regard to the tight monetary position we were in and the deficit which the Government inherited, there had to be a rearranging of priorities concerning the provision of funds. Consequently, a proposition was put to the Northern Territory Government that it bear part of the cost of providing this important and essential rail link. That was rejected by the Northern Territory Government. The South Australian Government then expressed some interest in the project. So we are talking about an inquiry and a project which will involve three governments. I give the honourable senator an assurance that when the terms of reference are agreed to and negotiations have proceeded substantially in that area-agreement, I think, has almost been reached-the inquiry will proceed with the view of meeting the Government's fundamental commitment to that rail link. Of course, the contributions by the other governments will be an important part of that inquiry. Senator REID —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I refer to the agreement which was negotiated between the former Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Hodgman, and the New South Wales Government that from the net profits of the sale of New South Wales lottery tickets in the Australian Capital Territory 50 per cent would be paid to the Territory and credited to the Community Development Fund. Is the Minister aware that the agreement expired on 30 June 1983? Is the Minister taking steps to renew the agreement and will any new agreement operate from 1 July 1983, or will there be a loss of revenue to the Australian Capital Territory because of the failure to renew the agreement? Senator GIETZELT —That question involves an amount of detail which I am afraid I am not in possession of. I will certainly refer the matter to the Minister whom I represent in this place and give an early reply to the honourable senator. Senator COATES —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it still a fact that Commonwealth money has not yet started flowing to Tasmania to compensate for the stopping of the Gordon below Franklin Dam? Is this because the State Government is still refusing to sign the financial agreement? I ask whether the Minister is aware of Mr Gray's comments this morning, in relation to the Tasmanian Government: We've kept everyone in employment, we've paid for those people to be employed and we've done it so far without Commonwealth assistance. I ask whether Mr Gray went on to say: . . . I'm just a little bit intrigued as to why people like Senator Coates and Mr Wriedt and a few other people are so anxious that the State puts its signature to this agreement. Is Mr Gray putting off signing just so that he can say these things without acknowledging that this situation is only temporary? Is he able to do so only because of reliance on the Commonwealth's promise, or is he perhaps dishonestly trying to show that the Commonwealth is not fulfilling its part of the bargain? The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator rephrase the last portion of his question, bearing in mind standing order 418. Senator COATES —Is Mr Gray perhaps trying to show that the Commonwealth is not fulfilling its part of the bargain? Alternatively, do Mr Gray's statements mean that the State Government does not really want or need the promised Commonwealth funds at all? Senator Peter Rae —Mr President, I raise a point of order. Two-thirds of that question-the latter part-was out of order. I suggest that you should rule it out of order. It can be rephrased into a proper question, but how could the Minister possibly give an answer as to what might be in the mind of the Premier of Tasmania or of anybody else? That is what the question asks for an answer to. Senator Coates —Mr President, on the point of order, it may be that the Minister has information communicated directly to him from Mr Gray of which neither Senator Rae is aware, nor am I aware. The PRESIDENT —I will allow the question insofar as Senator Walsh is able to answer it, bearing in mind his ministerial responsibility as the Minister representing the Treasurer. Senator WALSH —I do not know what is in the mind of Mr Gray, because apart from any other problem, what he has in his mind appears to keep changing. In the middle of June he said that $30m had already been spent on the Gordon below Franklin dam; the next week he said the figure was $60m, and the day after that it was $65m. Apart from the innate problem of lacking the psychic powers to delve into the mind of the Tasmanian Premier, I have an additional complication in that what comes out of his mouth keeps changing. With respect to the main point of Senator Coates's question, I understand that on the day of the High Court judgment the Prime Minister, I think it was, wrote a letter offering assistance for some job creation projects in Tasmania. He sought an interim agreement between the Commonwealth and the State which would regularise the transfer of Commonwealth funds to the State to pay for those alternative employment projects. Certainly on 31 August the Prime Minister when he visited Tasmania, following quite extensive consultations between State and Commonwealth officials, gave a draft agreement to the Tasmanian Premier who, I understand, indicated that, having had a look at the agreement, he would sign it within 14 days. He still has not done so. He received that letter 20 or 21 days ago. I was advised as recently as noon today that he still has not signed that agreement. So if the Tasmanian Premier has not received any money from the Commonwealth to fulfil the costs of the projects which the Commonwealth has agreed to fund, he has nobody to blame but himself. The Commonwealth agreed to fund projects to a total cost, in round figures, of $25m. It appears that what the Tasmanian Premier wants is not an interim agreement which would regularise the interim payment of Commonwealth funds to a State, which is what is done in every other case that I have ever heard of, but a brown paper bag stuffed full of used $50 notes or something of that irregular order. This Government does not operate in that way and will not operate in that way. I note also that in his most recent comments on the subject, the Tasmanian Premier indicated his intention to build a coal-fired power station which, I note, is a complete repudiation of everything he said about Tasmania's future power needs as early as February and March this year. That demonstrates further difficulties in my attempting to delve into what is in his mind because, as I said earlier, whatever may be in his mind, different things keep coming out of his mouth. Also, as is available on the public record, he has a quite deplorable and reprehensible propensity to twist correspondence to assert that previous letters that have been written have said things that have not been said. Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I appeal to you that the Minister answering the question has not the qualifications to do so. The Prime Minister took him off the negotiations on the dam because of his lack of knowledge. I believe that the Minister should not now be answering the question on this issue. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. I ask the Minister to relate his remarks to Senator Coates's question. Senator WALSH —The question essentially is: Have any Commonwealth funds yet been paid to Tasmania? The answer is no. The reason why they have not is that the Tasmanian Premier, despite a very firm indication which he gave three weeks ago that he would sign an interim agreement within two weeks, has still not done so. The Prime Minister is known to be a very patient man who strives and seeks desperately to achieve reasonable agreement and consensus with people in all States and even people of different political parties. But his patience is being sorely tested by the intransigence of the Tasmanian Premier. It is entirely his fault that no Commonwealth funds have yet been paid to Tasmania. They will be paid as soon as the Tasmanian Premier signs the interim agreement which, three weeks ago, he indicated he would do within 14 days, but has failed to do. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Japan led by the honourable Keiwa Okuda. On behalf of honourable senators, I extend to all members of the delegation a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra and to the Senate chamber. I trust their visit to Australia is an enjoyable and interesting experience. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator WALTERS —I would like to ask a question following the question that Senator Coates asked. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who I believe is more qualified to answer my question than the Minister for Resources and Energy, whether it is a fact that the Commonwealth has already allocated $ 30m this financial year for compensation to Tasmania for the decision taken by the Federal Government to stop the building of our dam in Tasmania. If so, is it possible for the Government to hand over that $30m in the interim to pay for the jobs of those 377 workers who have been done out of jobs as a result of that decision without any detail being signed? I put the question in this way because in any other disaster area where the loss- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator will ask her question. Senator WALTERS —In other situations of dire crisis money is handed over-such as the loss of 377 jobs. I ask the Minister why it has not been done on this occasion. Senator BUTTON —The first part of the question suggested that Senator Walsh was not qualified to answer the previous question. Having listened to this question, I am not sure that Senator Walters is qualified to ask one. From the beginning of the cessation of work on the dam in Tasmania, the Commonwealth has made its position quite clear in respect of the availability of and the payment for work of those who were displaced from employment on the dam. Senator Walsh has already informed the Senate that on a number of occasions detailed negotiations have been held with the Tasmanian Government about this question. I really do not know that I can add very much except to say that $30m has been provided by the Government in the Budget in respect of work arising from that decision. Senator Archer —Allocated-not provided. Senator BUTTON —Of course, Senator; 'allocated' is the key expression. The burden of the previous question to Senator Walsh was: Has agreement been reached about the taking up of that allocation? The answer is no, because the Tasmanian Premier has been sitting on his backside without answering correspondence which has been addressed to him. I have nothing further to add. Senator CHILDS —Has the Minister for Social Security seen the article in the Press last Sunday which claimed that the Department of Social Security was handing out unemployment benefit to young runaway children? What action is taken to ensure that the social security system is not misused? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the article in the Sunday Press which claimed that two runway children had claimed unemployment benefit from the Griffith, New South Wales, office of the Department of Social Security. The article suggested, in part, that such claimants are not required to present proof of identity and that inquiries into their family circumstances are not made. The article, of course, did not give any surnames or details of the people involved. If it had, in any circumstance section 17 of the Social Security Act would prevent me or anyone else from giving details of individuals' circumstances. All I can say is that to qualify for unemployment benefit a person must be at least 16 years of age, be unemployed, be capable and willing to undertake suitable work and be looking for such work. The person is also required to have registered for work with the Commonwealth Employment Service before claiming benefit, and payment is not made until satisfactory documentary proof of identity is provided. Where persons cannot properly identify themselves the Department will assist them to do so. If hardship is being experienced, the payment of a special benefit may be made in the meantime. As the law provides for payment of benefit to persons 16 years and over who meet the criteria, the Department would not normally, under these circumstances, make inquiries about whether such a person is a runaway. If the person is under 16 years of age inquiries would normally be made of the State welfare authorities and, where appropriate and possible, the child's parents. As I said earlier in answer to, I think, Senator Zakharov payments to persons under 16 years of age are not made where adequate assistance is available for a child and , particularly in this case, where adequate or extra assistance has been provided from State authorities. So I find it hard to accept the article on face value. I find it hard to understand how two children, bearing in mind all of those provisions of the legislation and the actions provided for under the legislation, could in fact have got unemployment benefit at that age without providing identity, et cetera, and without a fairly elaborate fraud being perpetrated. However, I will seek from the Department information as to what may have happened. If Senator Childs or anyone else has any other details about the case, they would certainly assist . Senator HAINES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that a Commonwealth medical benefit is at present not payable in respect of health screening tests? Does the Minister believe that this is contrary to the principle of preventive health care generally and, hence, is likely to increase the cost of health care in Australia rather than decrease it? In particular, is the Minister aware of the effect this prohibition has on the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, because in States which do not provide a free screening service prostitutes are reluctant to undergo regular costly tests at their own expense? Given the fact that so many men seem unable or unwilling to control their sexual urges and hence are likely to infect a number of prostitutes who in turn pass the disease on to other customers, will the Minister urge the Minister for Health to issue a direction which will enable screening tests for prostitutes, prescribed in the proper way, to be eligible for medical benefits? Senator GRIMES —I thought it was fairly sexist of Senator Haines to suggest that it is only men who sometimes cannot control their sexual urges. She raises two problems. The first is the limitation on provision of Commonwealth benefits for screening tests. Senator Haines well knows that that provision was introduced because of the indiscriminate screening tests which were being performed by various clinics as a result of the previous liberal application of the legislation and the system. Whole football teams were going in for all sorts of tests and doctors in cohoots with various clinics were organising screening tests which cost several hundred dollars when the chances of picking up any diseases were in fact quite minimal. The situation of prostitutes and sexually transmitted diseases to which Senator Haines referred is a different one. In that case, the screening test is a fairly limited one. There is a provision in the legislation-I am sure it is still there but I will check with the Minister for Health in case it is not-for items for the detection of sexually transmitted diseases through pathological and other tests. I know, as Senator Haines said, that in some States these tests are available free of charge and in others they are not. However, I think in most cases people indulging in that profession would have been advised to take out medical insurance to cover such tests, which I would have thought were a necessary part of their occupation. I think such tests will be more freely available under Medicare. However, I will refer the whole matter to the Minister for Health and see whether I can get an answer from him before he goes overseas in a couple of days time and I become Acting Minister. Senator BOLKUS —I refer the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women to recent criticisms of the Sex Discrimination Bill by persons associated with the National Party of Australia. Has the Minister examined such criticisms? Has she found any basis in them? Does the Government intend to change the Bill to meet any such criticisms? Does the Minister agree that the National Party now seems to be run by a group of 20 faceless women? Senator RYAN —I have read and heard media reports that some women who are members of the National Party, including Senator Bjelke-Petersen and, I think, Mrs Anthony, the wife of the Leader of the National Party, have made criticisms of the Sex Discrimination Bill. But from the reports that I have heard, their criticisms have been totally unfounded. Their criticisms have been along the line that there are some provisions in the Bill which would interfere with a woman's choice to be a full time housewife or mother. Of course, there are no such provisions in the Bill. The Bill is designed to provide more choices for women and, in particular, to ensure that, when women are seeking to participate in the paid work force, are seeking a home loan or are seeking accommodation, they will not be denied these things on the grounds of their sex, their marital status or the possibility of their becoming pregnant. I cannot understand why women such as the women from the National Party whom I have mentioned in this answer, who are in a position to study the legislation and who therefore must know very well that there are no grounds-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Standing Order 99 provides that questions shall not anticipate discussion upon an order of the day or any other matter which appears on the Notice Paper. The question relates to a Bill which is on the Notice Paper. The PRESIDENT —The Bill is on the Notice Paper and, whilst the standing order has never been interpreted in the way that the Leader of the Opposition suggests , nonetheless I suggest to the Minister that she should not debate a Bill which is before the chamber. I suggest that she restrict her remarks to the question asked by Senator Bolkus. Senator RYAN —I can understand the sensitivity of Senator Chaney on this issue. Clearly not only the coalition but the Liberal Party internally have found themselves unable to arrive at a collective, worked-out position in support of the Bill even though many people within the Liberal Party are advocating that course of action. However, in adverting to the media reports that there is some challenge to, or some intention to undermine, traditional family preferences in the Bill, I can say quite clearly that those allegations are absolutely groundless. As to the question about the faceless women, I certainly would not agree that our colleague Senator Bjelke-Petersen is faceless. We have come to know her face very well in this place and, indeed, her views. I think the wife of the Leader of the National Party is also a woman who is well known. However, I point out that when they claim to be expressing the fears of women who are housewives or mothers they are perhaps not taking into account the fact that not all women in our society, probably not even all women in the National Party, are married to rich men and, therefore, possibly not in need of the protection offered by the legislation. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to his reply to Senator Richardson regarding the phasing out of the uranium enrichment division of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and, indeed, to his statement to the Estimates committee that the reason was financial stringency. First, is it not a fact that the total appropriation for his Department, including the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, is $101.87m for this year by comparison with $82.8m for the previous year-an increase of 23 per cent in a year in which inflation is projected to run at 7.5 per cent? Secondly, even allowing for the transfer of certain coal responsibilities from the Department of Trade and Resources, was there not ample room to continue to finance the uranium enrichment division? Thirdly, was the enrichment work regarded, as the Minister has said, as the lowest priority work in the Commission or is not the real explanation that the scrapping of the enrichment division is an abject capitulation to the Labor Left? Senator WALSH —I am not able to confirm the precise figures which Senator Sir John Carrick has cited. They sound to me to be about correct, that is, that within the Department of Resources and Energy there was a 23 per cent increase-I think that is the figure he stated-in money terms. He pointed out correctly that that is in excess of the inflation rate. The major reason why that happened is that in the last year when Senator Sir John Carrick was the responsible Minister he raided the hollow log of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council trust account and withdrew, I think, $12m from the NERRDC trust account and appropriated only $1m from the Budget. This year, of course, the hollow log was empty. This Government actually had to appropriate from the Budget the funds required for the NERRDC program. I would have thought that that was one of the last things that Senator Sir John Carrick would want to draw to the attention of the Parliament and the people. The cosmetic trick, the sleazy piece of accountancy that he pulled as Minister last year, in raiding last year the NERRDC trust account, has distorted the year on year comparisons of funds allocated to the Department. I do not think I can remember all of the second part of his question but from what I do remember it is not worth remembering. As I told Senator Richardson, a judgment was made by the Government about what was responsible within the financial constraints which had been imposed upon the Government and which had been exacerbated by the situation we had inherited. That judgment was both responsible and compatible with the policy of the Australian Labor Party. As a result of that, the expansion to a full cascade of the uranium enrichment program which had previously been anticipated was not proceeded with. Some work on enrichment is still proceeding this year. What will happen next year is a matter to be determined at a later date. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that people at the Atomic Energy Commission have the understanding and have been informed that the work on uranium enrichment will be phased out over this financial year? Senator WALSH —It is certainly being run down this financial year. Whether it is terminated in the next or a subsequent financial year is a matter that has yet to be determined. Senator COLEMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, follows the question from Senator Childs last week on the number of persons receiving each category of pension through his Department. I ask the Minister whether he can supply estimates, preferably broken down by age, of the percentage of the total population which is eligible for benefits or treatment through his Department. Can the Minister advise the medium term implications for his Department's expenditure of this age distribution of the eligible population ? Senator GIETZELT —Following the question asked of me by Senator Childs last week and also matters which were raised with me during the addresses to some of the ex-service conferences which I have attended recently, I asked my Department to prepare this information because of its relationship to future Budget forecasts. The figures show that total service and ex-service personnel comprise considerably less than 5 per cent of the total population in each of the five- year age brackets covering the ages from 15 years to 54 years. However, I inform the Senate that above those ages the percentages rise considerably. Service and ex-service personnel amount to 15.8 per cent of all persons aged from 55 to 59 years, 25.7 per cent of those aged from 60 to 64 years, and 22.1 per cent of those aged from 65 to 69 years. However, beyond the age of 69 years the percentages begin to fall off. I might add that these percentages would be considerably higher if we added spouses and dependants to the figures. Because of the heavy concentration of eligible persons between the ages of 55 and 69, my Department's financial obligations can be expected to increase fairly dramatically in the next few years as those persons age further and require more spending on pensions and treatment. I asked my Department to prepare a table detailing those figures. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SERVICE AND EX-SERVICE PERSONNEL, AUSTRALIA As a per- centage of total popu- lation in that age Age Number group 15-19 10,500 0.8 20-24 17,500 1.3 25-29 14,100 1.1 30-34 23,400 1.9 35-39 23,400 2.2 40-44 11,600 1.3 45-49 8,500 1.1 50-54 36,100 4.7 55-59 118,000 15.8 60-64 163,400 25.7 65-69 120,000 22.1 70-74 66,400 15.9 75-79 29,500 10.9 80+ 21,600 8.2 Total 664,000 Source: Department of Veterans' Affairs (ex-service personnel); Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1981 Census (service personnel), and catalogue No. 3201.0 (total population). Senator GIETZELT —I thank the Senate. Senator LAJOVIC —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the Minister obtain for the Senate the following information regarding the composition of the consumer price index basket: Firstly, what is the present composition of the basket? Secondly, who decides, and on what basis, the actual composition of the basket? Finally, is there any intention to change the present composition in the near future? Senator WALSH —I am not able to give a detailed list of the items in the regimen of the CPI. Both the items in the regimen and the weighting given to particular items are changed periodically. I am not sure whether that period is regularly laid down as every year or every second year; but, from time to time, they are changed. As I understand it, they are changed at the discretion of the Commonwealth Statistician, acting, no doubt, on advice from a number of other areas of government. I will refer the question to the Treasurer to see whether he has anything to add by way of clarification or expansion of what I have already said. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. I refer to an announcement made by the Queensland Minister for Works and Housing, Mr Wharton, that the Queensland Cabinet has approved the release of $6m a year for the next three years for mortgage and rent relief schemes. Is this a Commonwealth initiated scheme and was it, in fact , announced by the Commonwealth over 12 months ago? Have firm details of the scheme been settled between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland? If so, was Mr Wharton correct when he said that loans of up to $2,000 would be available to provide emergency assistance to owner-occupiers in financial stress to assist them in maintaining repayments on their home loans. Senator GRIMES —I am informed by the Minister for Housing and Construction that, as Senator Colston said, the mortgage and rent relief scheme is a Commonwealth scheme. It was announced in March 1981 and commenced during 1982 and 1983. Senator Peter Rae —It was a government proposition, was it? Senator GRIMES —It was one of the former Government's propositions; I am coming to that. It has been jointly funded, in fact, by the Commonwealth and the States . It has some two years to run. Queensland did not participate in it and, in fact, refused to participate in 1982-83. The announcement by the Queensland Works and Housing Minister, Mr Wharton, refers to the Queensland Cabinet decision to participate in the scheme to 1983- 84. I dare say that the forthcoming election has something to do with that. This follows changes to the scheme which have recently been proposed to the States as a result of difficulties being encountered by some States in the administration of it. Firm details of the scheme in Queensland have not yet been advised to the Commonwealth Government. One imagines again that the decision to participate in the scheme was hurried and that the Queensland Government is having a bit of trouble with the details in view of some of the new Ministers there. It is understood, however, that the assistance will be available to both mortgagees and renters who are in financial stress within the guidelines advised to Queensland. The guidelines provide for financial assistance to be made available to mortgagees to assist them in maintaining repayments of their home loans. One hopes that a satisfactory arrangement can be made between the Queensland Government and the Commonwealth Government to incorporate Queensland in this scheme at last. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia) —by leave-On 15 September, during a public session of the current Hope Royal Commission into Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies, a number of references were made to me and to statements attributed to me. The allegations were made firstly by Mr McHugh, QC, representing the Government at the Royal Commission that comments I had made were those made by 'somebody who does not read the transcript'; secondly, by Mr Charles, QC, counsel for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, that the statements I had made indicated that 'I had failed to understand the position' that counsel were putting at the Royal Commission; and, thirdly, by Mr Charles, QC, once again for ASIO, stating that I demanded 'that Mr McHugh and I both be pulled into line by the Attorney-General'. These statements arose out of a Press report in the Australian Financial Review of 14 September 1983 when a Mr Paul Malone reported inter alia: Senator Nick Bolkus said he had seen reports that the Government counsel, Mr Michael McHugh, QC, and the ASIO counsel, Mr Stephen Charles, QC, had adopted a line of questioning leading to the suggestion that Mr Combe was disloyal or a traitor because he opposed the previous Government's policy supporting a boycott of the Moscow Olympics and trade sanctions against Russia. I was then reported as asking whether this was consistent with the policy of the Australian Labor Party, then in opposition, of opposing these sanctions. I submit that these statements which are before the Royal Commission are inaccurate in that, firstly, I made no angry demands that the two counsel be pulled into line; and, secondly, my complaint was based on an accurate reading of the transcripts. The transcripts showed the following line of questioning. On 31 August 1983 Mr Charles, QC, asked Mr Combe: Well, you were doing your best, were you not, to overturn sanctions and their effect on your visit to Moscow? He continued: But you were doing your best to discredit, were you not, the then government of your country? Mr President, I am reading from publicly available documents. On 7 September 1983, as reported at page 4724 of the transcript, Mr McHugh asked: You appreciated, of course, that those proposals were not seen by the Liberal Country Party government as being in Australia's interests? On page 4725 he asked: Well, whether it was designed for that purpose or not, you appreciated that your proposals would undermine the policies of the elected government of Australia? He asked Mr Combe once again: Whether you liked them or not, the sanctions were the nation's policies, were not they? On page 4726 Mr McHugh asked Mr Combe: You have used the word 'conflict'. I have used the words 'sap and undermine'. Your proposals were designed to sap and undermine the policies of the elected government of Australia, were they not? It is quite apparent also that the Commissioner understood what counsel were about. On page 4728 the Commissioner said to Mr Combe: The position is this, is it not, tell me if it is wrong, you disagreed very strongly with those policies? He was referring to the policies of the previous Liberal Government. It is clear from the evidence as I present it that my reported statements were accurate. It is clear also from the transcripts that learned counsel have reassessed the value of the line of questioning that they were then pursuing. I regret that this explanation has been made necessary by behaviour of counsel, which behaviour I have found not only personally offensive but also offensive to my rights and role as a member of this Parliament. Senator GIETZELT —During Question Time Senator Reid asked me a question. The Minister for Territories and Local Government has provided the following information. In respect of the first question, yes, negotiations are proceeding with the New South Wales and Victorian governments. In respect of the second question, yes, agreements will be backdated to 1 July 1983. In respect of the third question, the Department will be seeking maximum possible reimbursement to the Australian Capital Territory for the tax revenue from the sale of such tickets. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Chaney proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The prevarication of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, over uranium policy. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.12) —The Opposition brings before the Senate this matter which I think it can be clearly demonstrated is a matter of public importance. It certainly can be very clearly demonstrated that the Government and in particular the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are prevaricating over their uranium policy. That is a matter of great importance. It is a matter of great importance to the State of South Australia, to Australia and to the companies which are involved in the search for and the exploitation of our uranium resources. I suppose the immediate importance of the subject is best highlighted by reference to what is happening in South Australia and in particular what is happening at Roxby Downs. Currently in that State a major feasibility study is being conducted on what is to be a very large mine. Current indications are that we have a major mineral deposit. The people who are seeking to exploit it have publicly claimed it to be the largest deposit of its type yet discovered. It contains uranium, gold and copper. They describe it as being a project which will involve $1400m investment, new industry worth $500m per year, thousands of jobs to construct it, 10,000 new permanent jobs to run and support it, and jobs for hundreds of years. That is the self-assessment of that project. I have seen no outside criticism of those claims. Indeed, all of the evidence that I have seen is that we have here a major Australian asset which it is in Australia's interest to develop. The participants in this project have already spent very large sums of money. They have spent, for example, nearly $2m on environmental studies, and millions are currently being expended on a pilot plant. By the end of the feasibility stage the participants expect to have expended some $150m before they get to the point of making a final decision to proceed. So even at the exploration and feasibility stage this is a very substantial project. It is not, however, only South Australia which is involved in the development of uranium. In the Northern Territory we have the ongoing mines at Ranger and Nabarlek which are currently producing. We have the potential for other producers. Each of the two operating mines in the Northern Territory has the capacity to expand sales. Each of them wants to sell. Currently the Government is either unwilling or unable to tell the developers of these projects where they stand. Currently the Government and in particular the Prime Minister are prevaricating over where these projects can go. In the case of Roxby Downs, there is even prevarication about whether the project can go ahead at all. That matter is of concern to the Opposition and I believe to many Australians. It is a position which is totally unsatisfactory. This debate, like any other debate which touches on the issue of uranium development, is likely to be diverted by the Government and some other honourable senators up a series of blind alleys. Smokescreens will be raised and the central issues will, if possible, be avoided. I am sure that issues such as safeguards, waste disposal, nuclear weapons proliferation, Aboriginals and the environment are likely to be raised in debate which at this stage, in the Opposition's view, should be centred upon the prevarication of the Government and on its failure to come to grips with policy in this area. I make it quite plain that, as far as the Opposition is concerned, all of those issues which I have mentioned are important. Of course, it is important to have appropriate safeguards policies. We are to be concerned about waste disposal; we are to be concerned about the extraordinary question of nuclear weapons proliferation and how we can minimise the dangers of nuclear war; and of course we must have policies which protect the proper interests of Aboriginals and the proper interests of the Australian environment. Indeed, in my most recent visit to South Australia, and to the Chamber of Mines, at its invitation I addressed the question of Aboriginal mining interests and how they are to be brought together. I will not have it said, Mr Deputy President, that there is any lack of interest or concern on the part of the Opposition about these matters. I mention this because that allegation is a common feature of these debates. For example, I think Senator Tate suggested a careless approach on the part of the Opposition when last we debated this subject. I simply remind the Senate that when the Fraser Government took the decision in 1977 that we would proceed to develop Australia's uranium reserves, the Government assessed most carefully all of the relevant areas of policy. I refer members of the Senate to Parliamentary Paper No. 198 of 1977 in which the issues that I have mentioned are all dealt with in some detail. I remind the Senate that in this area the previous Government was careful to ensure that the conditions on which Australia entered into the world trade in uranium and the conditions on which we became part of the peaceful development of nuclear energy were very properly laid down. The Government regarded all of those matters seriously. That has been done. It may well be that some of those matters will be further refined and defined but the fact is that six years ago Australia's Government took the decision that it could, on a responsible basis, participate in this important element of world trade and make an important contribution to the world's energy resources. Mr Deputy President, in 1983 this debate takes place in the context of a series of facts which make it clear that Australia should continue to develop its uranium. We have around the world the widespread use of nuclear power for electricity generation, with an unrivalled safety record when compared with other forms of electricity generation. I name just a few of the countries that use nuclear power. In Finland in 1982, 40.3 per cent of electricity was generated by nuclear power; in Sweden, the figure was 39 per cent; in France, 38 .7 per cent; in Switzerland, 28.2 per cent; in Belgium, 27.7 per cent; and in Bulgaria, 25 per cent. The list goes on but the fact is that a large slice of the world is now getting a substantial part of its electricity from nuclear power. We live in a world which is continually developing waste disposal techniques, and those techniques are safely in use in user countries. We live in a world which, unhappily, has a nuclear arsenal which has been detailed on many occasions in this place by Senator Chipp and others. That arsenal is in existence and it will remain whatever Australia does, but we do seek to control and diminish it through our participation in the United Nations Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It is usual in this debate for allegations to be made that to sell uranium is to be like a drug pusher-that it is like selling heroin. Reference is made to the problem of nuclear war. I simply say to those who advance that argument that they should consider the deaths caused by so many aspects of our normal life. For example, if we consider coal mining we find that, during 1982, 1,662 deaths occurred as a result of that activity. If we consider the motor vehicle, which is so central a part of our normal life, we can find thousands of deaths resulting from its use. Yet we do not accuse coal miners and the manufacturers of motor cars of engaging in the drug trade. That sort of hyperbole gets us nowhere. The fact of the matter is that Australia is in the nuclear trade. It is engaged in that trade on a basis which adds to the safeguards in the world; it does not detract from them. The removal of Australia from that scene would not make any difference to the issues which are properly brought before the Senate by many honourable senators. It would not make any difference to the availability of uranium for warlike purposes. Thus, the argument is largely irrelevant to the issues that lie before us. It is important to remember that the alternative methods of electricity generation which are available produce their own problems. I think Senator Collard, who will be speaking on behalf of the Opposition later in this debate, will make a number of comments in that regard. But it is important to note that the use of coal for power generation involves massive mining. It involves the massive generation of waste products, both solid and atmospheric. It also gives rise to difficult environmental issues such as acid rain. When one compares all these things with the safety record of nuclear generation of electricity, the arguments get into some more reasonable focus. It might be argued that we should go totally away from all these forms of energy generation, be they coal or uranium, and move to things like hydro power. I remind the Senate of the passion with which the development of hydro power has been opposed in this place, not least by the Australian Democrats because they see the despoliation of the environment as being so important. There are disadvantages in every form of power generation. It is ludicrous to turn our backs on the fact that so much of the world has realised that uranium has its part to play. I refer honourable senators to the debate which took place on this issue a week or two ago and to the extensive quotations from some notable Australians, including the late Sir Barton Pope, Sir Macfarlane Burnet and Sir Mark Oliphant, all of whom spoke of the long term needs of Australia to develop its uranium resources. Those quotations were read into the record by, I think, Senator Townley. They are a good reminder to Australians of the positive need to develop our uranium resources. All the things I have mentioned are part of the context in which we chide the Government for its prevarication. I remind honourable senators that there is an existing industry in Australia which the Government will allow to proceed. There are controls in place in all the areas of concern. The Labor Government appears to be moving towards the approval of the largest mine, namely Roxby Downs, although that is not certain from the statements that have been made by Senator Walsh and others. I remind the Senate of the potential which exists, according to the Government's own papers, to increase substantially-indeed, some say to treble-our exports in this area. I remind the Senate of the costly work which is proceeding with the approval of the State Labor Government in South Australia and of the jobs that are to be created in this industry. Having reminded the Senate of those matters, I turn to what Labor is doing in this area. One might have thought that a party which is so interested in seeing its policy established by the grass roots, as is the Labor Party, would have in its policy document a sensible statement regarding its policy in government. But the printed policy which is issued by the Party demonstrates simply a hole. It demonstrates a desperate attempt to compromise between the competing factions in the Labor Party. It has produced a confusion of words which was described, I think by a newspaper today, as a gap waiting for a policy to fill. But there are some very sobering words in the printed policy of the Labor Party which would suggest that the Labor Government might take a quite strong stance, one more akin to that of the Australian Democrats than the words of the Prime Minister, which I will give the Senate, would suggest. The policy statement says that a Labor government will: declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; and not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy. Later it states: understanding the difficulties which could be encountered in the implementation of that commitment our uranium position would be a total unequivocal commitment to phase out Australia's involvement in the uranium industry and that certain conditions as outlined will and must be applied to those mines existing in production as of July 1982; and as an ALP government we give total commitment to preventing any new mines from being developed during our period of office. Then over the page one finds what most people regard as the Roxby Downs exception. It states that the Government will: consider applications for the export of uranium mined incidentally to the mining of other minerals on a case by case basis and on the criteria of whether in the opinion of a Labor government the mining of such minerals is in the national interest; That is a mishmash. It is very hard to get any clear guide from the policy of the Labor Party as to just where it stands. I know that a lot of businessmen and people who believe that it is in Australia's interest to mine uranium were greatly heartened when in Sydney, on about 2 September-not very long ago-the Prime Minister made one of his characteristically unequivocal declarations of support of the interests of the group he happened to be addressing. He made it very clear to them. He told the inaugural lunch of the Business Council of Australia: . . . as far as our Government is concerned, the Federal Government, and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead, and nothing is going to stop that. He went on: I say that together with John Bannon, who authorises me to speak for him. So, to the pleasure of the Opposition and to the approval of all of those who see this as being in Australia's national interest, we had that very clear statement on the part of the Prime Minister in Sydney just a few weeks ago. Again to a business audience, as reported in the Business Review Weekly of 3 September to 9 September, at page 13, we find similar statements by the Prime Minister that there is going to be no problem about Roxby Downs and that there is going to be no problem about extending new contracts to Nabarlek and to Ranger. So there was an appearance at the beginning of this month that the Labor Party had made up its mind. There was an appearance that these important Australian projects were going to be allowed to proceed. The Prime Minister's words in Sydney were as clear as they could be. Of course we are used to a Prime Minister who goes to America and says apparently what the Americans want to hear, and goes to Indonesia and says what the Indonesians want to hear. Indeed he seems to have the characteristics of a chameleon rather that a statesman. We find that on 6 September, within a week of those forthright Sydney statements, Mr Anthony addressed a question to Mr Hawke in the Parliament. There, of course, Mr Hawke was answering in front of his own troops, none of whom wishes to be part of this debate because of the rank division among them on this issue. I refer to House of Representatives Hansard of 6 September 1983, page 369, when Mr Hawke suddenly became all equivocal. I quote in part from his answer: It is well known that Roxby Downs also has major deposits of copper and gold. It is one of the world's major underdeveloped mineral resources. All honourable members will appreciate that Roxby Downs is of particular significance to the economy of South Australia as well as to the Australian economy as a whole. He went on: In the context of this policy on existing mines-and Roxby Downs-the Government is currently undertaking a review of all aspects of the industry, including the international safeguards aspects. The review will be considered by the parliamentary Party in the near future. Any continuing exports will be on the strictest conditions and will be undertaken in the light of the considerations that I have put forward. On the same day I asked Senator Walsh, who is the responsible Minister in this place, whether the views put forward by the Prime Minister and reported in the Business Review Weekly-the views I have just referred to-were the views of the Government. I asked whether Mr Hawke's remarks had pre-empted the Government's uranium policy review. Senator Walsh said-I quote his answer in part: . . . it has been widely publicised over some time-a number of submissions have been prepared or are in the process of being prepared for lodgment with Cabinet for discussion and subsequent decision, probably some time later this month, regarding the mining of uranium within Australia, and matters directly associated with it, and the international safeguards agreement. I will refer that . . . question . . . to the Prime Minister . . . to see whether he has anything to add to my answer. Senator Walsh, who always seems to pride himself on his forthright approach to economic and other matters, slid off that question. I refer honourable senators to the record if they have any doubt about it. In exactly the same way, when questioned by Senator Sir John Carrick during the examination by Senate Estimates Committee C on 12 September, Senator Walsh slid about but in the end he said: This is clearly a policy matter. I have answered the question about three or four times already. There is that presumption around- that is the presumption that Roxby Downs will proceed- based on various people's interpretations of what is in the Labor Party's platform. But that is part of the comprehensive policy review decision. Nothing is clearer than that this Government does not have a policy on uranium. It is clear from Senator Walsh's statements in the Estimates Committee and elsewhere that there is no ongoing commitment to Roxby Downs, notwithstanding the Roxby exception in the policy. Nothing is clear about the policy except that it does not exist. The current stories in all the media about Labor's further shilly-shallying on this subject all highlight the failure of this Government and the failure of Mr Hawke in particular to live up to their obligations to the Australian people, to clarify this policy and to allow Australians to get on with developing Australia's resources. One can have some respect for Senator Chipp and for the Australian Democrats, who say: 'We will oppose uranium mining and export under any conditions'; one can have no respect for a government which behaves in this shilly-shallying way, which cannot make up its mind and which puts its internal conflicts over dogma ahead of Australia's national interest. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.33) — Firstly, I would like to make a few comments on Senator Chaney's remarks. Senator Chaney said, if I got it down correctly, that Roxby Downs is the largest deposit of gold, copper, silver and uranium in the world. He made this statement not in respect of each of the minerals separately but collectively. That is not, strictly speaking, correct. One can argue that the largest deposit of those minerals, and almost any mineral one can think of, is in the ocean. While that seems to be irrelevant, it draws attention to a very important point-that the absolute size of the deposit, the magnitude of the reserves of valuable minerals in a deposit, does not tell us whether it is economic, with present technology, to mine that deposit. I suggest that Roxby Downs must, as yet, be regarded as being in that category. Senator Chaney said that the company concerned with Roxby Downs was going through the feasibility stage-I think that was the term he used-of its study. Implicit in the use of the term 'feasibility stage' is not only technical feasibility of mining the deposit-that, of course, is beyond doubt. It is, as I pointed out last week among other things, technically feasible to grow pineapples in Antarctica. It is technically feasible to extract uranium from sea -water; it is technically feasible to extract gold from sea-water; it is technically feasible to extract almost every element found in the world from sea -water. Whether, however, it is economically viable to do so may be a completely different question. The companies which are involved in Roxby Downs have yet to assess the economic feasibility of that project. For that reason, among others, no formal application has been lodged, so far as I know, either with the South Australian Government for a production licence or with this Government for guarantees of export permits for uranium or any of the other minerals which are located in that ore body. Senator Chaney was objective enough-I give him credit for this-to mention clause 64c of the Australian Labor Party's minerals and energy platform, which I incorrectly called clause 11c in a similar debate a couple of weeks ago. Clause 64c, to which he referred, is the Roxby Downs clause. Although Roxby Downs is not mentioned in that clause, it is, so far as I know, unanimously accepted by people who participated in the last National Conference of the Labor Party, during which that clause was written into the platform that Roxby Downs was the prime example of an ore body in which uranium might be incidental to the recovery of other minerals. I wish to say a few words about Nabarlek, Ranger and other potential mines. If there were no political constraints, no environmental concerns and no weapons proliferation concerns-in other words, if a government were determining a policy based on maximising the net economic benefit to the country and determining a uranium policy based only on that criterion-the cheapest way of supplying the quantities of uranium which could be sold at acceptable prices on world markets from Australian sources for the rest of this decade would be to expand the production capacity of Ranger. So at least for the foreseeable future, and using economic criteria alone, there is no justification for the production to be drawn from other mines for the amounts of uranium for which sales can reasonably be expected for the rest of this decade. I do not recall the precise figures but they are something of this order of magnitude: For an additional investment of $ 70m, an extra 3,000 tonnes of yellowcake could be produced from the existing Ranger mine; to produce an equivalent quantity from the next best alternative requires a capital investment of the order of $350m or $400m. So on cost effective grounds alone, if there were to be an expansion of uranium production for a number of years, the economically rational thing to do would be to supply that increased demand from the Ranger mine. But having said that, I think it is equally important to note that at this stage there is no possibility of contracts being written at acceptable prices for further supplies. I cite a letter from Queensland Mines Ltd dated 17 January this year: . . . the uranium industry is experiencing extremely difficult times and the opinion of most experts is that the market will remain depressed for at least another four, possibly eight years with a consequential decline in prices. More recently, in a letter dated 30 March-after the Federal election-a letter from the Total group of companies, which has an interest in the prospect at Ben Lomond adjacent to Townsville in Queensland, stated: At present, of course, there would be no question of a mining development because of the state of the world market for both molybdenum and uranium, even if it were decided that this particular deposit met the Government's guidelines for development. I repeat the words 'even if it were decided that this particular deposit met the Government's guidelines for development'. In other words, at this stage there is no reason to rush into a hasty decision. As further confirmation of the depressed state of the world market, although going back marginally further in time, it is known, and I have stated it in the Senate on at least two occasions, that a draft contract with the Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom and the Pancontinental venturers in Australia-the Jabiluka prospect in Australia-was put before the previous Minister responsible, Mr Anthony, who rejected it on the grounds that the pricing arrangements were not satisfactory. This fact was acknowledged and published on 5 May this year in the Australian in the following terms: A spokesman for the former trade and resources minister, Mr Doug Anthony, confirmed this, but said that it should be made clear that the refusal was based on lack of suitable provision for future price reviews. In other words, in Mr Anthony's judgment, the price offered in the first year for that contract was satisfactory on purely commercial criteria but the price likely to be obtained in subsequent years was not. Of course, if one is looking at a 20-year contract, obviously the price obtained in the first year is relatively unimportant. The previous Government rejected that application because the price was not satisfactory. Senator Kilgariff —Was that Jabiluka? Senator WALSH —Yes, it was Jabiluka. It is granted-Senator Chaney was reasonably objective about this and I am willing to be likewise-that there has been a marginal improvement in the spot market price of uranium since Mr Anthony rejected that provisional application last December. But it has not improved to the point where contracts could be written at prices which would have been acceptable to the previous Government. It is a subterfuge to suggest, as the Opposition did a fortnight ago in moving, of all things, a motion of urgency and in a slightly varied form repeated the boring procedure today, that there is something reprehensible about this or that this Government is prevaricating because it has not yet made decisions in detail on a policy as important as the mining of uranium in Australia and the conditions, if any, under which it will be supplied to potential customers. I have taken the trouble to have the meaning of the word 'prevarication' looked up for me. It means to speak or act evasively, to quibble or equivocate and to straddle. Straddle seems to be a very accurate description of the Liberal Party and of what the Liberal Party and National Party between them are doing about another piece of legislation presently before the Senate. I refer to Senator Ryan's Sex Discrimination Bill. Mr Macphee has said that there is no place in the Liberal Party for anyone who opposes it. Of course, Senator Walters opposes it quite vociferously, saying that women are as smart as men. No enlightened person, on average, would dispute that. Whether Senator Walters makes the average is something on which one may have reservations. To return to the subject before the Senate, it is not reasonable to assert that this Government is prevaricating on this issue. What is reasonable is to assert that this Government, in contradistinction to its predecessor, is behaving responsibly. When the coalition parties were in government, on some issues they rarely prevaricated. Sometimes they did but more often than not the Liberal Party just caved in and did what the National Party told it to do. There is no haste needed in making a decision on this issue because on commercial grounds alone the markets are not available. In March, shortly after the election of this Government, the things which were urgent and which needed to be done were done almost immediately. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) ordered a comprehensive review of safeguards. Shortly afterwards he appointed an Ambassador for Disarmament. The Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) almost immediately cancelled the negotiating determinations which had been issued by his predecessor to six companies. I note, consistent with what I have said before, that it had issued negotiating determinations for prospects and companies and a potential supply vastly in excess of that which could be absorbed on the market if commercial criteria alone were applied. To have issued six negotiating determinations in the way that Mr Anthony did was an irresponsible and rather foolish action. Those negotiating determinations were promptly cancelled by the present Minister for Trade who subsequently-this is already a matter of public record-reissued two of the negotiating determinations to two ventures, Nabarlek and Ranger. He has observed since that, even if commercial criteria which have been common to this and the previous Government are fulfilled, which is highly unlikely, the issuing of the determinations does not necessarily mean that approval for sales contracts will automatically be granted. That was one of the urgent matters to which this Government promptly addressed itself. I will come to others in a moment. This Government also suspended, though not quite so quickly, the shipment of uranium to France which was scheduled for July this year. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has announced that all shipments to France are suspended until October 1984, the reason being that this Government regards the behaviour of France in detonating and testing atomic weapons in the South Pacific as unacceptable, not an act in which a civilised responsible power should indulge and one which is viewed with sufficient gravity to have led the Government to suspend shipments of uranium to that country. I guess one could say that the question of sales to France was something on which the Liberal and National parties when in government did not prevaricate. They were quite happy to supply uranium to France and to have Australian uranium used to manufacture atomic weapons to be detonated in the South Pacific, in spite of the fierce and totally justified opposition from almost every island state in the South Pacific, from New Zealand and now from Australia under the present Government. But the previous Government did not prevaricate about that. It was quite happy to supply uranium to France from which that country could construct atomic weapons for detonation in the South Pacific. Another matter was not mentioned by Senator Chaney, but I anticipate it is likely to be mentioned by subsequent speakers in the debate; so I will say something now about the question of the change of time-table for the consideration of the whole range of submissions on the uranium issue which have been prepared by various Ministers for the Government and ultimately for consideration by Cabinet. There are some five submissions in total. At any time it would have been difficult or potentially difficult for adequate consideration to be given to that number of submissions on matters of such importance in a week when Parliament was sitting and there were many other competing demands on the time and attention of Ministers. At most times, had it been possible to complete proper consideration of those submissions during the sitting week, consideration could have been extended beyond the sitting week. But this week the Government is in the situation where the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who plays a key role in this matter, both in his capacity as being ministerially responsible for the safeguards agreement and as a senior member of the Cabinet, is leaving the country on Thursday. It would have been unwise to have reached a final decision on all these submissions in the absence of the Foreign Minister. In a parliamentary sitting week it would have been a risk to attempt to devote the time and attention that was due to this very important matter. For that reason, of course, the consideration of these submissions has been deferred until a date in October. In closing, I point out that this is a rather tiresome rerun of the farce in which we were forced to participate 13 days ago. The Government is not prevaricating on this issue. The Government is behaving responsibly. It is giving this important, complex and admittedly for large sections of the community, somewhat emotive and potentially divisive issue-I use the term ' divisive' in the context of Australian society as a whole-the consideration which is due to it. We will not be stampeded into a hasty decision which the Government and the nation ultimately might regret. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(3.52) —I suggest-I even hope- that in his enthusiasm to raise this matter of public importance the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has had a semantic problem. The matter of public importance proposed for discussion is: The prevarication of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, over uranium policy. I would have thought that the word 'prevarication' is basically a euphemism for lying which, I think, would be an unduly harsh term to use in this regard. The Australian Democrats agree wholehartedly that the equivocation of the Government over uranium policy is a matter of immense public importance. We think the term 'equivocation' is hard enough on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government without accusing them of lying over this matter. The Australian Labor Party's commendable uranium policy was one of the main reasons for its election to government in March this year. There is no doubt about that at all. Its policy does outline, in no uncertain terms, the APL's total opposition to the mining, processing and export of Australian uranium. I will quote again-I think it has to be quoted frequently to remind everybody of these points-part of the ALP's uranium platform upon which it was indeed elected to office. It states: . . . having regard to the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, and in particular- a to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and b the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated; It is imperative that no commitment of Australia's uranium deposits to the world 's nuclear fuel cycle should be made until- a a reasonable time has elapsed for full public debate on, and consideration of , the issues; b the ALP is satisfied that the abovementioned problems have been solved; . . . Accordingly, a Labor government will- 54 a declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia; b repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australia's uranium; and c not permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to ALP policy. The Australian Democrats are in entire agreement with this policy. We find it impossible to reconcile these sentiments with the actions of the Labor Government in relation to the Australian uranium industry. The Government began its term in office well enough by cancelling negotiations for further leases for the mining of uranium in Australia. It is unfortunate that this strong stand has not been carried on. Two uranium negotiating licences have been re-issued-that of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd for the Ranger mine and that of Queensland Mines Ltd for the Nabarlek mine. It is interesting to note that although Queensland Mines Ltd may be pleading hardship because its stockpiled uranium, already mined at Nabarlek, is as yet unsold, this excuse cannot possibly be used in defence of the decision to renew ERA's licence because all production from the Ranger mine has been sold and the mine is making about $50m a year. It appears that the only reasons ERA has for wishing to negotiate further are to increase its already considerable profits and to assure customers that there will be no supply problems through the 1980s and the 1990s. In relation to the firm undertaking that no new mines will be developed, the Australian Democrats are most concerned that the ALP apparently does not consider Roxby Downs to be a uranium mine, although reliable estimates set the amount of recoverable uranium in the mining area at about 1.2 million tonnes which is far more than the combined reserves of all other uranium mines in Australia. Indeed, it is one of the largest deposits of uranium in the world. We find it a cloud cuckoo land type of situation, an unreal situation. The Government says that because of the fact that, by accident, other minerals are present it is not a uranium mine and that it is perfectly all right to mine and process uranium. I do not know of any mine in the world which does not have a mix of elements in the ore. Nature did not design this planet so that there would be pure uranium in one place, pure copper in another place and pure gold in another place. It is a ludicrous policy, one which does not even bear a moment's examination. It is the lamest possible excuse that the Government could have for saying that this is the reason for going on with that kind of mining. Therefore, we find it absolutely incredible that the Labor Government is prepared to allow this huge new mine to proceed, apparently with a clear conscience, although it is patently obvious to anyone who has an interest in the subject that, in doing so, the Government is making complete nonsense of its own uranium policy. I must agree with Senator Chaney to the extent that the Government is in tatters on this matter. It is all very well for the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), a responsible Minister in this Government, to get up here in this place and tell us that the Government does not intend to be stampeded into deciding this, that or the other. But the issues are plain enough . Everybody knows what the situation is concerning uranium. The state of the market, the dangers and all the other issues involved are clear enough. Those factors will not change between now and October or November as Senator Walsh said. He is creating a situation in Australia and the world in which we appear to be shilly-shallying and equivocating shamefully over this matter which is a matter of great importance to the community and is one which people from all sides of the community want to see solved one way or another so that at least we have a policy with which we can live. It is not good enough for the Government merely to stall on this matter because there is no reason to suppose that any new element will change the situation in the next few months or years. I speak now about what appears to me to be an intolerable sell-out which is contemplated by the Government. I hope the Government will re-think its stand on the Kakadu National Park. Reports in the newspapers have suggested that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Cohen, is in favour of declaring the proposed Stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park a conservation zone-whatever that might be. I gather that it is an area in which uranium mining and exploration would be allowed. The Minister has made faint protesting noises about those reports but he has not denied them. I think the time has come when people all over Australia are waiting for him to deny that so that we know that this great national park will be allowed to remain intact. I am referring to that section of land between the present Kakadu National Park and the sea. It is an enormously valuable tourist and environmental asset for Australia. It is a wilderness area in a world which is increasingly losing its wilderness areas. This equivocation over the declaration of Stage 2 of Kakadu National Park is being carried out in circumstances-Senator Walsh himself has described them-in which we cannot sell any more uranium for years, maybe not even for decades. What possible excuse can there be for not declaring Stage 2 of the park now? Once Stage 2 is declared, the park can be developed to the extent that it needs developing. Tourists can visit the area and people all over the world will say: 'Here is this marvellous place in Australia which we can visit. It is completely unspoiled wilderness country. Let us go there to see it'. Of course they will come, because wilderness areas elsewhere in the world are already grossly overcrowded. It is necessary for what remains to be preserved in world planetary terms alone. In other words, what I am saying is that it is a sound economic proposition for us to declare Stage 2 of the park and to allow it to proceed as a national park which people can visit rather than allow ourselves to be conned by the present uranium miners saying 'We want to have areas in which we can get in and meddle, explore and damage the territories'-even exploration damages the environment tremendously-'and if we find uranium we want it excised from the park. We want to go on digging up uranium all over the place'. There are the strongest possible reasons for the world to repudiate nuclear technology completely. In the first place, every watt of electric power now being generated in the world by nuclear powerhouses could be replaced by a sensible program of power conservation, including insulation and devices which reduce the power demand of electric motors. Indeed there is the sheer waste of electric power which occurs wherever nuclear power is produced. This phenomenon of waste, such as the leaving on of building lights all night and the overuse of heating and refrigeration, is now a recognised characteristic in areas served by nuclear powerhouses. The power generated by a nuclear powerhouse is so great and its costs so huge that the incentive is to promote use rather than conservation, even up to and beyond the point of waste. So the argument that the world cannot do without nuclear power is a spurious one. The world can do without it very easily indeed. A decent program of conservation, introduced internationally tomorrow, could replace all the power now being generated by all the nuclear powerhouses in the world. Very promising new methods of generating power cheaply are being developed rapidly and successfully. The new type of amorphous silicone cell, which converts light directly to electric power, is one. Developers in both the United States of America and Japan predict that within five years it will be cheaper than power generated by nuclear or fossil fuels. This development, which may well end up simply as rolls of plastic film which generate power when exposed to light, will provide cheap power where it is needed and will reduce, and indeed eliminate, reticulation costs and reticulation loss of power which are big factors in Australia. Importantly, these amorphous cells have a photo-electric effect-that is, the conversion is from light to power. Because of this these cells can be used in cooler and low sunlight areas and still produce electric power. These and ancilliary developments, such as successful and cheap wind power in the form of wind farms, are suited to very cold and windy climates. Such a plant in the megawatt range has been operating at Tvind in Jutland for many years now and very successfully. It has a most interesting power curve. The power curve goes up with necessity. As the wind gets colder and stronger and as the demand rises, so does the amount of power produced. Quite an elegant curve is produced in that area. These developments will shortly make nuclear power unnecessary. The economics of nuclear power are already so severely in doubt that utilities in the United States of America have cancelled contracts and elected to lose tens of millions of dollars rather than proceed. Where are nuclear power plants proceeding? They are proceeding in areas where the nations wish to use the byproducts to make nasty and unpleasant atomic weapons. Democracies such as the Philippines, South Korea, Libya and Argentina have installed nuclear power plants. They want them for the plutonium which they can get from the spent fuel rods which can be so conveniently and easily made into atomic bombs. Now that the United States has rejected the suggestions of Professor Ringwood of the Australian National University for Synroc, for storing nuclear waste, as I read recently in a prominent US magazine, even that red herring can be refuted. Senator Tate —Who has rejected it? Senator MASON —According to a magazine article which I read quite recently, it has been rejected by the United States. I will give the honourable senator a copy. I agree that Professor Ringwood's effort was a good one. I am a little surprised that that reaction was taken. It is a fact that in spite of talk of Synroc and classification, more than 90 per cent of all the world's nuclear wastes are still in dangerous temporary storage, which must deteriorate quite soon to the extent that not one but a whole succession of dangerous accidents will occur. That must lead to higher cancer rates, malformations and spontaneous abortions, these being the things which will characterise this brave new nuclear world. The Government knows that what I say is true. On what basis can it equivocate over the uranium policy? The industry is known to be dangerous and capable of causing pollution that can last for tens of thousands of years. It is known to be closely associated with the making of nuclear weapons. The old lie that plutonium from a nuclear powerhouse cannot be used for atom bombs has now been thoroughly refuted. The material will explode all right. It will destroy cities, take lives and pollute the environment massively, because such bombs are very dirty in terms of fall-out. Only the yield is not able to be reliably assessed. The Australian Democrats take the equivocation of the Government over this matter very seriously indeed. Millions of Australians who oppose the nuclear industry voted for the Australian Labor Party on this policy. Now it seems to be betraying that policy. We will not stand idly by and see that happen. If there is an electoral disadvantage to the Government because of this, so be it. There will, of course, be an electoral disadvantage. I know that many ALP members and senators agree with me. I say to them: This issue is too big and too important for them not to follow their own conscience. They must continue to try to fight for what they know is right. On this issue I plead with them-only on this issue; I ask for this and no other-even to use their votes against the Government to see that a sane and responsible uranium policy is followed by this nation. A firm anti-uranium policy by Australia would have a vast effect on the world. We would then be in a genuine position to see that the present hopelessly inadequate inspection and non-proliferation conditions are tightened up. That must happen as soon as possible. I appeal again to all honourable senators: If they want to be remembered by their own grandchildren and great grandchildren as men and women of principle and courage who did what they could to solve this terrible nuclear dilemma which we face, do as I suggest. Or are they content to be numbered among the lemmings, the short term opportunists and the yes men who find it more expedient to go along with what seems easiest rather than what is right? Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(4.07) —I support my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and Senator Kilgariff who will also take part in the debate on the prevarication of the Government, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in particular, over uranium policy. Having listened to Senator Mason, my immediate reaction was that somebody probably put up a self-same emotional argument when electricity was first introduced. History books record that there was the same emotion in the community at that stage about the number of people who would be electrocuted and so forth and that we should not go ahead with that form of power. It is unfortunate that the issue of uranium mining and nuclear power do evoke that emotional response, mainly out of ignorance in the minds of many people. Every time the debate comes up much is done to try to tie together the proliferation of nuclear weapons with nuclear power generation. If we want to use that argument let us put together the use of titanium in fighter aircraft as against the use of civilian aircraft. Let us put together the use of rocket fuel for intercontinental ballistic missiles as against the use of rocket fuels for putting up communication satellites and so on. Let us use the argument that aeroplanes could be used for delivering weapons and all the rest of it per se. The fact is that if a nation wants to develop a nuclear weapon it puts in a reactor. It does not have to get its uranium from us. As the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) rightly said, there is plenty of uranium in the sea water. Expense does not come into it when nations go down that track. They can get their uranium out of granite, sea water or wherever. Nations which use nuclear power do not use the same reactors to make plutonium for their nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons use the pure plutonium 239. The plutonium which comes out of the power reactors is very dirty, including plutonium 239, 240, 241 and so on. It is spurious and emotional to try to go against the mining of uranium and the nuclear power industry by using the argument of nuclear weapons in the same debate. Senator Coleman —If you have the capacity for one, you have the capacity for the other. Senator COLLARD —Nobody is denying that. If we have the capacity to build an aircraft to deliver people we have the capacity to build an aircraft to deliver nuclear weapons. If we are worried about war let us get out and be against war. It does not matter how we kill. It is the war that is terrible. It makes no difference whether one has been shot, bayoneted or burnt up in a nuclear blast; one is dead. Let us try to get some better understanding between nations. That is what will stop the use of nuclear weapons. I think we have to concentrate our thoughts in this debate on the balanced use of our energy resources. We have plenty; there is a whole myriad of them. Senator Sir John Carrick said in a debate that we must ensure that we do not isolate one potential danger and ignore other great dangers. I am not denying that there are certain dangers associated with the nuclear power cycle. The point I am making is that there are probably fewer than there are with a lot of others. We must realise that there are other dangers with other cycles and, indeed, with other industries. We worry about the waste from nuclear power. Senator Mason mentioned that. Plenty of work is going on. I have been to places where vitrification is going on. Our own Australian National University has developed the synroc process but my understanding is that there is not sufficient waste in the world to make Synroc a commercially viable operation on a large scale. Why are we worried just about that? Occasionally there is a debate in the media or in the public mind about other wastes from industry, but not to the extent that there is debate about waste from nuclear power. Dare I mention dioxin, which is a waste product of industry? Polychlorinated biphenyl, PCB, is another waste product, as are heavy metals. One can go to the old gold mining areas where cyanide has been used in the extraction process. My colleague Senator Kilgariff is fully aware of the situation that applied in the Finniss River in the Northern Territory, which is near Rum Jungle. Radioactivity did not cause the unfortunate problems associated with the Finniss River. The heavy metals that were associated with the mining and the processing caused the problems. It had nothing to do with radioactivity. Senator Kilgariff —And it is being completely rehabilitated. Senator COLLARD —And it has been rehabilitated, as have most other mining areas, whether they be uranium or other minerals. There are plenty of problems associated with fossil fuel which some people, apparently, do not want to recognise. If we think that we can go on burning fossil fuel ad infinitum without taking into account the ultimate effects on our atmosphere and what it will do to future generations, we are not being very responsible. We are probably being more like the lemmings that Senator Mason referred to than he would like to think. We have to look at these problems. The coal mining industry is far more dangerous than the uranium mining industry. The uranium mining industry is a basic hard-rock mining industry. There are now far fewer deaths in that industry than there were from black lung or pneumoconiosis. We have fixed that. There were far fewer deaths in the early days of the uranium mining industry because of radon gas than there were in the coal mining industry. We have now solved the problem with the adequate ventilation of the mines. The effluent that comes from coal fired power stations vis-a-vis the effluent from nuclear power stations is almost horrific. Even with the best scrubbers in the world radioactivity, sulphur dioxide, and carbon dioxide go up the funnels of coal fired power stations. We are laying an horrific future for the world unless we do something about that. This brings me back to my idea of a balanced use of resources. Scientists are now starting to worry about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect and what that will do to future generations. It will cause a partial melting of some of the ice caps if it continues. We are looking at a probable doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about year 2025. The heat which radiates from the earth will be reflected back. Already there has been a discernible rise in the temperature of the earth over the last 20 years. We are looking at a possible rise of about three to five degrees centigrade by 2025. Senator Mason —But that will be of some benefit, will it not? The latest thinking on the matter seems to be that this will really lead to increases in food production throughout the world. Senator COLLARD —It could in some parts, but not in others. The melting of the ice cap will not be so good for people living on sea shores. They will have to move. People living inland will then be on the sea shore. It is predicted that some of the great food producing areas of the world will become dust bowls. There will be a massive shift. On top of that, there is a phenomenon acid rain with us now. We are fortunate in Australia. I guess that makes us a little blase about what happens in the rest of the world. Hundreds of thousands of deaths have been caused by smog in European countries. I have spoken to people living in Los Angeles who have said that rain stings their faces because of the acid in it. We are now seeing forests being denuded across the far north of North America, Canada, and the north of Europe in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. A lot of problems are being created by heavy industry in Czechoslovakia, and East Germany . Forests are dying. Lakes are dead because of the acid content and fish are dying. I am not talking of the future; it is happening now. I return to the point that I began with-that we have to use properly the energy that is available. Currently there is no cleaner or safer source of energy than uranium. Senator Mason rightly mentioned the use of alternatives. He mentioned wind power and solar power. How far can one go with those? We cannot deny that it is a basic fact of physics that for every square metre of ground with the sun directly overhead we get one kilowatt of power. That cannot be increased. With all that we know at this time, we can get only 10 per cent of that power anyhow. In other words, with one square metre of photovoltaic cells or a steam generating reflector-a small scale outfit-we could light one 100-watt bulb at the source. That does not allow for any transmission loss. Senator Mason —A car has just been driven across Australia using about one square foot of solar cells. Senator COLLARD —That is from one square metre. It is a physical fact that when the sun goes down, or one is in the northern or southern climes, there are different situations. We can use wind generation too. But what will the conservationists say when they see forests of windmills scattered all over the countryside? The one alternative solar power station that is generating on a part commercial basis and a part research and development basis is Barstow in southern California. Senator Mason and I have both been there. It is behind Los Angeles. There, 72 acres of heliostats are used to generate up to 10 megawatts of power given ideal conditions. Of course, once the sun goes down or clouds come over, that is the end. A nuclear power station could generate about 2,000 megawatts for 24 hours a day in the same situation. I am making the point of balanced use. Let us use our coal but let us use it sparingly until we see where the greenhouse effect is taking us and until we know what we can do about the acid rain. Let us use nuclear power. I am a great believer that Australia should go nuclear. It would make great sense to have a base power station about 1,000 megawatts somewhere between Adelaide and Melbourne or between Melbourne and Sydney. Such base power stations would take a lot of strain off the hydro-power stations, which could then be used for peak load. It could also take a strain off fossil fuels, which are causing smog. Those who fly a lot have noticed smog, particularly over Sydney, because of the burning of fossil fuel both in power generation and by motor vehicles. I cannot understand the people who call themselves conservationists getting so mixed up in this argument because, as I said, nuclear power generation probably causes fewer environmental and land use problems than do coal fired power stations. Mr Justice Fox, in his report on the Ranger project and the nuclear power industry, tabulated about 10 things which had to be looked for in respect of the coal mining industry and the generation of power from coal. I cannot understand people who say they are conservationists being so much against uranium. We really only have to look outside the front of Parliament House to see that aesthetic delight there. Those people purport to be conservationists and are very anti-uranium. I even saw a sign there stating 'uranium kills'. For heaven's sake, we can say that cars and aeroplanes kill. But our society has decided that there are acceptable risks associated with the use of motor vehicles, motor bikes and aeroplanes. But for these people, apparently there is no acceptable risk with uranium mining or uranium power generation when to this point in time they have proved to be one of the safest methods of mining and one of the safest methods of power generation. I conclude my remarks by returning to the point raised by Senator Chaney. In all of this we have a Prime Minister who says one thing to the business community. He is almost like a Liberal Prime Minister when he speaks to the business community and around the world; he has just about out-liberaled the Liberals. However, he certainly does not say the same things in this House. He is not game. However, he said to the inaugural lunch of the Business Council of Australia: As far as our Government is concerned, the Federal Government, and the Government of South Australia, the Roxby development is going ahead, and nothing is going to stop that. He has never yet said that in this place. He has not been game to say it in the Parliament. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.21) —I oppose the claim by the Liberal and National parties in this chamber that the Senate should be discussing as a matter of public importance the prevarication of the Government, and the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) in particular, over uranium policy. It is worth while, I think, to note the structure of this matter thrust into the parliamentary program at short notice in order to divert this chamber from discussing, as was scheduled, the Medicare program of the Government. This matter has been presented today in the form of a matter of public importance rather than an urgency motion, as this self-same topic was presented some fortnight ago. That is because the Liberal and National parties opposite suffered such a humiliating defeat on bringing that motion to a vote that they have decided today to fall short of that and bring forward instead a matter of public importance on which they know a vote will not be taken and therefore their barrenness of thought, their poverty of policy, will not be exposed by a division of this chamber. Having made those very brief remarks on the actual structure of the matter, as I say, thrust into the parliamentary program this afternoon, I want to speak to the substance of the claim that the Government has prevaricated in this matter. I took the trouble to go to the Parliamentary Library and look up the dictionary to assure myself as the meaning of the word 'prevarication' because it seemed to me, on the face of it, to have no relation to the activity of this Government. I found that in the dictionary it is defined as meaning to evade the central issues by shifting around and confusing the issues so that the question is not faced. I absolutely and utterly refute that charge being made this afternoon. What an audacious charge to bring against the Government from that side of the chamber! When one considers the parliamentary performance over seven years of the Liberal and National parties in relation to this matter, one can see prevarication personified. For seven years they failed to come to grips with the issue in a way which would allow them to come into this chamber and offer a legislative framework, a statute or a series of statutes which would control the development of this resource, if indeed it were to be developed. Year after year , and I note that Senator Mason is nodding his head in assent, there was brought into this chamber various piecemeal amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and, both the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats pleaded for the Government to bring in a fully fledged, fully considered legislative framework which would perhaps hive off the research from the safeguards and entrepeneurial activities of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, just for a start. In other words, we pleaded with the Government to identify and define the functions and tasks which should be performed and to provide a proper legislative framework for them. But instead, as I say, for seven years we had piecemeal amendments to a legislative framework established in the 1950s, during a time which, as I have said before in this chamber, we supplied uranium for the nuclear weapons programs of our allies. The 1950s cold war era was the legislative framework which this Government used for seven years to guide, as it put it, the development of the uranium industry in Australia. If ever there was prevarication in this chamber in relation to coming to grips with that matter, that was it. But it is not altogether surprising because the fact is that the party organisations behind the parliamentary members of the now Opposition also utterly failed to come to grips with this problem. If there is something that can be said about the Labor Party and the Democrats, it is that we have very publicly and painfully in our various conferences and our resolutions, which have a status which is not the same as that which applies to resolutions of the Liberal and National parties' supreme organisation, tried to identify and confront the real issues and questions which must be faced if this abundant energy source is ever to be developed. When one looks to the Liberal Party, one finds that it is bereft of policy in this area. When one looks at the Federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which I obtained from the Library, under the heading 'Natural Resources' where one might hope to find some mention of uranium, there is nothing to be found. I do not know what the honourable senator opposite is holding up. Senator Chaney —I referred to that in my speech. I referred to 'Uranium- Australian Policy 1977'. We set out our policies for all of these areas in great detail in parliamentary paper No. 198 of 1977. Senator TATE —Is that a party organisation paper or a parliamentary party paper? Senator Chaney —It is a parliamentary party paper. Senator TATE —I am not referring to that. I am referring to the party organisation which lies behind the parliamentary membership. In the energy section of the Liberal Party's national platform one can find no mention of uranium. But in relation to the development of energy resources, the only criterion put forward is 'reliance to the greatest extent possible on competitive market forces, including the pricing mechanism'. If ever there was prevarication in the sense of a failure to face up to the real issues involved in the development of this resource, there it is, because the only criterion offered by the Liberal Party to guide the development of this resource is the competitive pricing mechanism. In other words, the profit motive should be the sole and certainly the guiding and dominant criterion. We say that that completely fails to come to grips with what must be dealt with if one is to be prudent in this matter. Of course, there are matters which need to be of immediate and wider concern. Of immediate concern-to some extent it explains the cautious approach of this Government-is the fact that we could not responsibly come into government and immediately overnight cause havoc in the townships and amongst the workers who are dependent on the Ranger and Nabarlek mines. To immediately snatch away the livelihood of some 500 workers who are involved in those existing and operating mines would be scandalous. It would have been totally irresponsible, immediately and overnight to put in jeopardy the arrangements of the various Aboriginal communities which have been freely negotiated between their representatives and the mining companies. We do not intend to make an absolute, immediate judgment in those matters but to take a more deliberate, painstaking and considered course. The consequences of our action could be of a devastating kind in relation to those townships and obviously we have to be prudent in coming to our decisions in relation to those matters. However, that does not prejudge the issue. I am merely speaking of prudence and caution in the consideration of these matters. Wider issues have to be considered and these have been touched on well, I think , by Senator Mason. The nuclear non-proliferation issues are of concern to us all, as many honourable senators have pointed out in this chamber from time to time. If we are to avoid the nuclear holocaust which could bring human history to an end, we have to find a means, as far as possible, to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and we must ensure that the international community in 1985 continues to give its allegiance to that United Nations Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which in that year is due to be further discussed. This Government, unlike the previous Government, has taken the symbolic but practical step of appointing an Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, who has as one of his prime concerns the putting of the Australian Government's view that that nuclear non-proliferation treaty ought to be honoured. That includes not only urging those countries which are so anxious to obtain nuclear weapons for their arsenals of destruction for their regional disputes-one can name them: Argentina, Brazil, Israel, South Africa, India and Pakistan, some of which we know or suspect already have these weapons-not to obtain the weapons, so that proliferation can be stopped, but also reminding the superpowers which have them what is required by Article 6 of that Treaty, that is, to reduce their nuclear arsenals. If they show good faith, perhaps other nation states may join the Treaty. That is what the Australian Government is certainly urging on the international community. Senator Peter Rae —But you would accept that there has been a bipartisan approach here to try to urge that? Senator TATE —What I am saying is that that is one of the matters which leads us to be more cautious and prudent than the Opposition apparently wants. It wants us to make immediate decisions to allow the unhindered, unfettered development of this particular energy resource. That is something we will not do because of our obligation in this instance to human history itself, to ensure that none of our nuclear products moves into the international nuclear weapons cycle. In relation to the disposal of waste, it is once again extremely relevant to mention, as Senator Mason did, the efforts of Professor Ringwood, the director of the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University. Professor Ringwood claims to have developed a method of immobilising high level wastes for periods exceeding the aeons which are needed to guard the radioactive wastes from permeating and moving into various environments, which then of course could lead to disasters for animal and human life. The fact is that no radioactive waste has yet been incorporated in Synroc, even at the laboratory stage. I think this Government is right in allocating funds in the Budget to encourage the further stages of this program by Professor Ringwood because it is extremely important not only that scientists come to an agreement, if they can, on methods of immobilising and trapping these extremely dangerous wastes for the long periods that will be needed but also that a situation emerges in which ordinary people in the community can have confidence that that is the case. In other words, it is not something merely to be decided upon by exchanges of learned papers in scientific journals; it is something which must have the confidence of the general community. I believe we are right to encourage that but we are not confident that it has yet been achieved. What I am pointing out is that, far from prevaricating, this Labor Government, in the short six or seven months it has been in office, has confronted the issues, as has the Australian Labor Party organisation as a whole. We have not evaded the issues; we have not walked away from them; and we have not equivocated. We have defined the issues as best we are able and we have tried to address them in a responsible way. So I assert confidently that we are doing what every thinking Australian would wish us to do, and are doing particularly what some of the young people in our nation, who are-it would not be too much to say-tormented by the prospect of the mining of uranium in Australian and the consequences that might hold for humanity, want us to do. We are doing what those young people want us to do, that is, to halt certain activities where we are absolutely confident that they ought to be halted. That is why this Government and our Prime Minister, in face-to-face conversation with French President Mitterrand, said there would be a suspension of shipment of uranium to France under contracts already negotiated because France refuses, in its arrogant French way, to cease testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific. When we have definite circumstances like that, we move decisively but in relation to other matters I believe that the general community and indeed this chamber would expect us to act in a responsible and cautious manner while we, having identified the issues, try to grapple and come to grips with them. For that reason, as I say, I have no hesitation in rejecting the matter of public importance raised today. The Labor Party has tried to grapple with the problems. We are using the processes even within the Party to ensure that, for example, Cabinet alone does not make a pre-emptive decision in relation to these matters. There will be full and adequate discussion within our parliamentary party, that is, the elected representatives of the Australian people, to whom the Australian people have entrusted government. In relation to these matters, then, I say that far from prevaricating this Government has been prudent in the best sense. It has taken a cautious, practical and wise approach to these issues and for that reason, amongst others, the chamber ought to reject this matter of public importance. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(4.35) —The terms of this matter of public importance are: The prevarication of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, over uranium policy. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said that this was a tiresome rerun and that the Government was not prevaricating. The fault with that statement is that Senator Walsh did not address himself to the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) recently, in various places, because the two sets of comments contain a mass of contradictions. Senator Tate mentioned that shipments of uranium to France had been cancelled until, I think, October 1984. He would know full well that, as France is a member of the European Economic Community, under an arrangement between member countries it can be supplied with whatever mineral or other requirements it has. So the action that was taken, though perhaps in good faith, was completely meaningless. During the debate Senator Walsh made three allegations. First of all, he said that in theory if the Ranger project were to expand it could satisfy world demand for Australian uranium. Perhaps that is superficially true. The fact is that Senator Walsh should know that both the Germans and the Japanese are the principal importers of Ranger uranium and while they want to curtail their imports of Ranger uranium this is because they want to diversify supplies of the concentrate from other sources. Of course we see on the world market these days that, among other reasons, this is why Nigor and Kabor and other places in South Africa have become suppliers. The purchasers of uranium throughout the world for various reasons wish to diversify. Secondly, Senator Walsh claimed that world prices for uranium were depressed. Is this really true? The reality of the situation is that prices for uranium have risen from some $17 a pound to $24 a pound and are still on an upward curve . At any rate, we are concerned with the situation in 1988 prices in new developments, not 1983 prices. Further, Senator Walsh claimed that the previous Government did not approve a contract for the sale of uranium to the Central Electricity Generating Board in England because of the low prices for uranium negotiated. Of course this comment is quite mischievous. The truth is that the previous Government, through Doug Anthony, did not approve the variation in market price arrangements under which there was to be a high price in the earlier stages of the contracts but which would then be reduced. It was not a case of prices becoming too low. He disagreed with the contractual arrangements. Since March, the Labor Government has been agonising, trying to resolve its policy. It is quite obvious, when one sees the State of the Australian Labor Party with its left wing, its moderates and such, that the Government is in a state of confusion. This would have to be because of the present lack of leadership from Mr Hawke. Let us look at this confusion. On 2 September, Mr Hawke said, at a business lunch-it has been repeated before-that there was unequivocal commitment to Roxby Downs going ahead. He added: As far as our Government is concerned . . . that Roxby development is going ahead and nothing is going to stop that . . . Was he referring to the left wing? Anyway, one would think that that would be pretty definite and that, as he was the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, Cabinet must have decided. This was on 2 September. Then Senator Walsh told Estimates Committee C that, in respect of uranium, the final policy decisions have not been made. Is Senator Walsh now telling us that Roxby Downs is not a policy decision, that it is his own decision, or that no decision has been taken at all? Or is the Prime Minister shooting recklessly from the hip? Perhaps this is the case in view of the controversy now raging within the Labor Party. To compound the confusion, we were told yesterday of a Victorian ALP meeting on the weekend which decided unanimously to oppose new export contracts. Senator Peter Rae —Does that include Senator Button? Senator KILGARIFF —We would have to look into that. Who should be a participant, but another Hawke Minister, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)? Is he then representing government policy? Perhaps, as Minister for Industrial Relations, he thinks that he can conciliate in the dispute between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Resources and Energy. What are we left with? We are left with a clear perception of chaos and confusion, with the Minister for Resources and Energy publicly disagreeing with the Prime Minister, with the socialist left in a much more neurotic state, and with the Prime Minister giving no leadership. In all this time great damage is being done to the market for Australian uranium and to the industry. As a result, jobs are being lost to a tremendous extent. One has only to look at the position in the Northern Territory to see an example of the job loss that is being experienced. There is no development. Increased employment, which would have been a tremendous fillip to the development of the north, has not taken place. Investment has been discouraged, as is quite obvious. Investors in Australia and from overseas, the people who are interested in seeing that uranium is developed for energy, must be discouraged when they see the Leader of the Australian Government, the Australian Government itself and the Ministers within that Government all making different statements, thus bringing about an utterly chaotic situation. Of course, we see growth retarded. It is amazing that we should see a situation in which the Government, which is looking for growth and employment, is bringing about unemployment and retarding growth. Worse still, the reliability of Australia is now put under a cloud. Previously, Australia was looked upon as a country in which it was safe to invest. In view of the chaotic situation arising from the fact that we do not have a uranium policy, our main purchasers of other commodities such as America and Japan must view our reliability as being under a cloud. Of course, the extent of the damage being caused is hard to assess. It can be illustrated by two things, namely the uranium industry within the Northern Territory and projections of world markets, and unemployment. The Koongarra and Jabiluka mines in the Northern Territory would employ up to 4 ,000 people. Total unemployment in the Northern Territory amounts to 5,900 people. I am not suggesting that development of uranium in the Northern Territory would overcome the full extent of unemployment. It would create 4,000 jobs. The development of the Northern Territory can be measured in terms of the many young people in Australia who would go there looking for opportunities. In the construction phase of about three years about 1,500 people would be employed . The expected life of Jabiluka is 25 years and that of Koongarra 12 years. Over the next four years, if the developments were to go ahead, $630m would be invested in Jabiluka and $150m in Koongarra. Already some $55m has been spent at Jabiluka and $100m at Koongarra. For both mines that is an investment in 1984 of $275m, in 1985 of $275m and in 1986 of $260m. In addition, $50m will be invested in the final construction year. The revenue to Australia from these two mines would be enormous. In 1986 we would be looking at $155m; in 1987, $385m; and in 1990, $810m. Even by the year 2000 it is projected that there would be $655m in revenue in 1982 dollars. The Northern Territory, which requires immense amounts of money for development, would get 18 per cent of this revenue. The Aboriginals would also benefit from royalties and payments. They certainly realise this now because they, the traditional owners, are still waiting for the Federal Government to give them the answer to their message stick that they wish to go ahead and develop uranium for the benefit of their people. At Jabiluka, for instance, $1.5m has already been paid to Aboriginals; $10m is payable when production starts; and 4.5 per cent will be paid in special royalties. At Koongarra during the first 10 years of production $20m pre-tax is paid per year to Aboriginals and an all-up figure in equity and royalties. In gross terms the failure to go ahead with these two mines will cost Australia in loss of construction expenditure and production $10,000m for the life of the mines. Can Australia afford that? Can Australia afford to have the policies of the present Government? This is what is being put at risk by the Prime Minister's failure to give leadership and his failure to decide to proceed. I turn now to the matter of world demand. At present there are some 294 nuclear reactors. There are 215 more in various areas of production. By 1985 France will have 55 per cent of electricity generated from nuclear fuel. By 1988 the United States will be a net importer of nuclear fuel. Australia, if it could become a politically stable and democratic country-it is at least democratic, but it is unstable at present-could have a very attractive future having in mind the importers of the future. Therefore it is high time that with all this potential to create wealth for Australia, to develop our resources, to create jobs and to give government the revenue it is crying for, to help the Aboriginal people-they certainly need help and are 100 per cent behind the mining of uranium-the Government made its decision to give Australia the fillip it requires. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(4.48) —In the debate on this matter of public importance I want to respond to some of the rather wild statements that have been made by Opposition senators who apparently do not as yet appreciate that they are in opposition because they had no policies on specific and general main areas. The people rejected them in March and will continue to reject them until they can come up with positive policies. One of the policies that we put forward at that time was that there had to be adequate safeguards before we could permit the uranium industry to go ahead. I will just touch on one of the matters Senator Collard raised when he talked about the waste problem and suggested that we should be concerning ourselves more with other industries. I am glad to see that he has not left the chamber. By way of interjection I then raised the matter of the coal industry. I make the point once again that it was entirely the failure of the coal industry to make adequate provisions for health and safety measures in that industry that caused so many deaths. If Senator Collard cared to speak to his friends and associates in that industry he might ensure that those coal mines that are still operating are operating in such a manner that will reduce the death toll from those horrific diseases. We had similar problems in the asbestos industry with mesothelioma and asbestosis because of the failure, once again of industry, to provide proper health and safety safeguards. We are seeing the same matters raised in the uranium industry. It was interesting that Senator Kilgariff elected to speak on the matter of employment, because on the figures I have before me, in a document which is entitled 'Economics of Australian Uranium Mining-Economic Factors related to Australian Uranium Mining and Export' it states that at the moment: There are . . . approximately 2,180 people directly employed in the uranium industry. Many of these people are employed in construction jobs and will no longer be so when that phase of operation is over. By 1984 employment will probably be between 1,430 and 1,530 . . . The Ranger Inquiry Report contained estimates that in direct employment in townships due to uranium mining was around 25 per cent. Therefore, total uranium mining township employment would be around 2,000 in 1984. The multiplier effect on employment generated elsewhere is harder to estimate. However, using general resources boom estimates, the Australian economist, Johns , has arrived at the figure of 4,000 additional indirect jobs. We have heard of this mythical figure of 500,000 jobs to be created with the development of the Australian uranium industry. I recall that that was the headline splashed all over the daily newspapers when the previous Government-I stress the word 'previous'-was in operation. It was claimed that 500,000 jobs would be created in the uranium industry with the go-ahead of the Liberal- National Party coalition. Those 500,000 jobs did not eventuate. They will not because there has never been a proven estimate that 500,000 jobs could become available. Senator Robertson —It was plucked from the air. Senator COLEMAN —It was a figure plucked from the air. It was one of those figures that somebody dreamed up or had a nightmare about. The previous Government was not terribly sure how it could sell uranium mining. It thought that it could sell it to the Australian people on the basis that it would provide employment. That has not eventuated, and it will not because there are not that many jobs available no matter how hard one pushes the industry. Senator Kilgariff —Have you been to Jabiru? Senator COLEMAN —There is not going to be that degree of employment opportunities available, no matter what one does. I agree with that portion of the matter of public importance which states that we are prevaricating. Yes, we are indeed prevaricating on the uranium policy issue, and we are prevaricating for very good reasons, not the least of which is the instability of the industry at the moment. The Opposition is constantly quoting and misquoting Australian Labor Party policy. I make it quite clear right now, as I have at all times, that the part of the policy that concerns me most is that which applies to adequate safeguards for waste disposal. In any debate on uranium many other considerations have to be taken into account. Only days ago there was a newspaper report concerning the latest nuclear power station to be opened in Great Britain. It opened one day and closed five days later after a steam leak. The interesting part of that news item concerns the absolute incredible escalation of costs. They went from a projected $A425m to a completion figure of $A1,156m. That is the potential cost. The Central Electricity Generating Board said at that time: 'We will have to operate at full power for 30 years before we get to a break even stage'. And that is supposed to be an economical industry. The consumers got a bit of a shock too because they suddenly found that their rates were dramatically increased and they did not like it very much at all. At the moment France is considering introducing other measures because of oversupply. It is talking about manipulation of the uranium market. Russia is revising its nuclear power program because it is concerned about the safety, or lack of safety, in the nuclear power industry. I come back once again-because of the limit of time on matters of public importance-to the problems of waste disposal. Look at the situation that has developed quite recently with Professor Ringwood and Synroc, which I understand some members of the Opposition were promoting prior to the last election. In fact one suggested we might like to have a nuclear power station on, I think, King Island and that because we had the Synroc program so well advanced we would be able to take care of any waste disposal problem. Synroc is not advanced to that stage. It is barely past a laboratory experiment. Questions regarding Synroc are being raised. We have the problem of the storage of waste until such time as it can be put into Synroc. We have the problem of the cooling ponds. For instance, what does one do with millions of gallons of radioactive waste which has to be dried out before it can be converted and introduced to Synroc? Where do we put these cooling ponds? Do we have them scattered in everybody's back yard? Senator Giles —In Lang Hancock's back yard. Senator COLEMAN —Lang Hancock, the mining magnate from the west, did at one time state he would not mind having a nuclear power station in his back yard. His neighbours objected to it quite strongly and I am sure they would consider doing the same if he put a radioactive waste cooling pond in his back yard. There are areas of further research. Senator Collard —Or a coal stockpile. Senator COLEMAN —I have had my say about coal, as the honourable senator has on a number of occasions. A little earlier I answered his accusations about the number of deaths in the coal industry. Perhaps he was not listening, so I will go over it again. I said then that it was entirely because of the failure of the coal industry to provide adequate health and safety standards that there were so many deaths in the industry. I said also that it was the failure of the asbestos industry to provide those adequate health and safety standards that caused and is causing so many deaths in that industry. If honourable senators want to know about the uranium industry, I have a very interesting book in my office. I have read it into Hansard or by leave incorporated it in Hansard. It lists every accident that has been reported in the nuclear power industry. It is an impressive list. Senator Childs —A thick volume. Senator COLEMAN —It is a very thick, sick volume. It is an extremely concerning document, but no more concerning than the statements that are being made here and in other places about what Synroc is going to do. I would welcome the news that Synroc is the answer to the waste disposal problem. It has not been proven to be that as yet, and until such time as it is, I am not prepared to accept it. We have seen over the years a number of supposedly safe methods of disposal of radioactive waste. All of them have been proved to be irresponsible in that they have not been adequate, they have not been safe. There is no such thing as a comprehensive and adequate safe disposal method for radioactive waste at this time. Until such time as there is, the Labor Party and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will continue to prevaricate in the uranium industry because we have a commitment- Senator Chaney —To prevaricate. Senator COLEMAN —To prevaricate in the true sense of the word, means to delay. The honourable senator should look up his dictionary. We are delaying for very good reason. If honourable senators opposite want me to take the last four minutes of my time talking about the other problems of the proliferation of nuclear weapons I am happy to do so. But I will content myself with saying that I am quite happy for the Prime Minister and the Labor Government to prevaricate in the uranium industry until such time as it is assured that the well-being and the welfare of the Australian people and the people of the world, which are paramount to a Labor government, are being upheld. I suggest that we have spent quite enough time on this mischievous matter of public importance introduced by the Opposition, and I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In accordance with section 121 (3) of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959, I lay on the table the annual report and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia , the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon for the year ended 30 June 1983. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Science and Technology Council-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to Section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 2. Petroleum Products Pricing Authority-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to Section 37 (1) of the Petroleum Products Pricing Act 1981. 3. Supplemental Agreement Between The Commonwealth and the State of Victoria in Respect of Projects by way of Improvement of Main Railway Lines in Victoria- pursuant to Section 7 of the National Railway Network (Financial Assistance) Act 1979-together with a statement relating to the agreement. 4. Proposals for the Construction of Two Standard Bus Shelters and One Additional Street Lamp in King George Terrace Parkes-pursuant to Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974-together with a brief statement relating to the proposals. 5. Rights of Review Under the Migration Act 1958 and Related Legislation- Interim Report on the Constitution of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-Report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council. 6. Review of Taxation Decisions by Boards of Review-Report to the Attorney- General by the Administrative Review Council. 7. The Review of ANZUS-Text of a statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives on 15 September 1983. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator TATE(Tasmania)(5.01) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I speak very briefly on the annual report of the Australian Science and Technology Council, known colloquially as ASTEC. Amongst other things, I think it is important occasionally for senators and other parliamentarians to commend the work of the very fine Australians who give of their time and resources of mind and intellect to aid the Government in coming to rational and reasonable decisions in relation to the matters on which they have some special expertise. Certainly, ASTEC is made up of many Australians of quite diverse and distinguished backgrounds in public affairs, from academies of learning and private enterprise who have contributed to governments forming much better policies than would otherwise have been the case in relation to science and technology in Australia. As I have said, perhaps we do not often enough commend the work of such people and I believe that we should take this opportunity to do so. Some idea of the scope of the work of ASTEC can be gleaned from the fact that it meets more or less on a monthly basis and that it produced, as listed in appendix G, some nine reports which were tabled or presented to the Prime Minister over the period under review. Of course, it is to the Prime Minister that ASTEC reports. That is as it ought to be. It is, of course, in accordance with the practice in other countries that such groups should report direct to the head of government rather than to a particular Minister. It is important that, should any conflicts of interest arise between Ministries in relation to matters of significant national importance, rather than the Minister with operational responsibility for the area having all the information, the head of government-in our case the Prime Minister-ought to have this information available so that a considered and good decision can be arrived at. The key to the future activity of ASTEC-I am pleased to note this-probably lies in the remarks contained in the introduction on page 2 of the report and I will paraphrase those remarks somewhat. If Australia is to compete in an international environment increasingly dominated by skill and technology, rather than resource advantages, ASTEC itself must broaden the scope of those issues to which it addresses itself in order to contribute to government formulation of policy. One has in mind the fact that Australian governments have increasingly placed emphasis on the contribution which science and technology can rightly make to our economic recovery through improving the competitiveness of existing industries and the development of new ones. Of course, not only must one have a sound industry policy, such as that developed by Senator John Button and Mr Barry Jones, but also one must have the underpinning of a sound national education policy and a generally sympathetic national government which can provide an environment in which the skill based industries, the brain based industries can flourish. To that extent I was delighted to see during the past week the Government announce the implementation of its response to the report of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee which, of course, links the tremendous scientific ferment and activity that takes place in Australia-our contribution to pure science is quite remarkable and significant as Senator Robertson also quite rightly emphasises-with the entrepreneurial, industrial and commercial front. Of course, with the unveiling last week of the Government's tax incentives for so-called sunrise industries, we see a pledge by this Government and its Treasury, which will forgo some $20m of revenue in order to stimulate some $40m worth of investment in sunrise industries, that we are interested in fostering this new industry which will not only give employment opportunities to many Australians but also generate wealth which can be distributed throughout the community. I commend Senator Button and Mr Jones for their work in ensuring that Australia will have a type of business structure which can encourage the development of biotechnology, genetic engineering, personal computers, the writing of computer programs, medical technologies, communications equipment, solar energy cells and all those other matters which lie at the forefront, one hopes, of that supplementing of our traditional ways of generating wealth in our community. I conclude by saying once again that I believe congratulations are due to the members of ASTEC for the help and aid which they have given to the Government. I hope that the Government will continue to pay significant attention to the reports of that body. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.08) —In speaking to the motion in respect of the annual report of the Australian Science and Technology Council I echo the sentiments expressed by Senator Tate when he paid tribute to the time voluntarily given by, and the effort and the expertise of those who make up ASTEC. Of course, in doing so, that does not mean that anyone on either side of the chamber is absolutely bound to the acceptance of every word in the reports of ASTEC as if they were holy writ. In fact, there are some aspects of some of the reports with which I am sure some of us would disagree. But one aspect of the work of ASTEC which I think is worth commenting on is the problem of communication between the technologist, the scientist, the economist and the rest of the world-those who have to make and implement decisions which involve technology and science. Senator Button —You are getting with it, Senator. This is good. Senator PETER RAE —If the honourable senator will just listen he will get a good idea of what I am going to put forward. I was very impressed some years ago with a discussion I had with Professor Bradbury of Stirling University where he had developed what I think was probably the first entirely new course in the world of what he called technological economics. This new discipline was intended to develop people who had a training in the art and perhaps even the science of communication between those who were the technologists and the scientists and those who were the businessmen and economists so that the twain can meet. I believe that one of the biggest problems we have is the lack of understanding and empathy-I am not suggesting there is antipathy-which exists between the various disciplines and various trainings in conceptual thinking. I would, as I have done for a number of years, urge again that further consideration be given to running an appropriate course at a suitable university so that we can perhaps include on ASTEC some people with a specific training in the discipline of technological economics. I was somewhat disappointed, when having raised this matter as I have on a number of occasions with the Council of the Australian National University, I found it was referred to the economics department which said that it had looked at transport economics and one or two other things but it did not think technological economics would advance the situation very much at all. In other words, they missed entirely the point of what on earth it was supposed to be about. It is the development of an entirely new discipline, of a communicator between the various disciplines. It is not to train economists and it is not to train technologists. It is to be able to bring somebody in between who can create a communication between them. As I have said previously on a number of occasions, I hope that ASTEC's performance will in the not too distant future be enhanced by the addition of some people with this type of training. I again refer to Professor Bradbury's course at Stirling University as a good base for that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to use the occasion of the tabling of this report to make an appeal to the economic rationalism of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh ). When we were on the Government benches, we heard many lectures from him about rational economic approaches to Australia's various problems. The Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and its interaction with State price controls on petrol present an opportunity for the Minister for Resources and Energy to bring his talents to bear in the community interest. In the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority we have a body which was established by the previous Government to take over the role which previously had been carried out by the Prices Justification Tribunal with respect to the pricing of petroleum products. The Fraser Government accepted a price surveillance and pricing authority role in the public interest. That may be a good proposition but I suppose that some would say that even that interference with the market is unlikely to be productive for consumers in the long term. The real difficulty that I wish to draw to Senator Walsh's attention-a difficulty of which I am sure he is aware-is the fact that, alongside the Commonwealth Petroleum Products Pricing Authority, is a series of State authorities which exercise a price fixing role in this area. Indeed, it is a particularly prized policy of a number of governments, including the New South Wales and Western Australian governments. We therefore have the extraordinary position of those in the industry being subject to two sets of price controls. Certainly, they appear to be unanimous in their view that this is inefficient and that very often the operation of the State mechanisms is such that they are denied a fair return for their capital and a fair return for their efforts and labours. I understand that from the consumer's point of view the price of fuel is a sensitive matter. I understand further that, given the very competitive state of the industry at the moment because of the drop in demand, and as a result of that drop in demand the fact that companies are tending to compete very heavily with each other from time to time to retain market share, the actual prices set by State authorities at times do seem to be irrelevant. Over the last couple of years difficulties and inefficiencies in the system of dual controls have emerged. I do not believe that that sort of efficiency is in the interests of consumers or indeed in the interests of the community generally. I ask Senator Walsh-I acknowledge that I did not mention to him that I wished to speak on this report; the fact that he is not in the chamber is very reasonable in those circumstances, but I am sure his staff will draw his attention to the fact that I am raising it now-to direct his attention to this difficulty, which is a real one. I suggest that, if on examination of that difficulty he agrees that there are economic inefficiencies in the present arrangements, he should take that matter up with his State colleagues. There will undoubtedly be doctrinaire differences between the Government and the Opposition on this subject. The previous Government accepted a role for the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority . The real issue is the duplication of authorities. I ask Senator Walsh to examine that to see whether the difficulties which the industry faces in this area can be reduced, if not removed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.16) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. At this stage I say no more than that I wonder at the proper use of parliamentary time to examine the construction of two standard bus shelters and one additional street lamp in King George Terrace, Parkes, or indeed anywhere. Because this does not relate to the Parliament, it may be justified. But I have some concern at the multiplicity of things which are brought into this chamber for personal examination which is beyond the human resources available to the Parliament-and indeed would be beyond our resources if we trebled or quadrupled the membership of the Parliament. I must say that this item leaps off the page as one which is on the category of deserving at least a question mark. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania)(5.17) —If I can assist the Leader of the Opposition, I am informed that such proposals must be tabled in the Parliament under the provisions of the Parliament Act to enable these works to be constructed within the parliamentary triangle. Senator Chaney —I am sure, yes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In speaking briefly to the review of ANZUS, I welcome Mr Hayden's statement which reaffirms the commitment to ANZUS despite the left wing of the Australian Labor Party which was obviously out to ensure that the ANZUS agreement was dispensed with. I am also pleased to see the rejection of the non-aligned policy which would have left Australia defenceless. Indeed, there would have been no cohesion in defence in that part of the world. I am also pleased to note the recognition given by the Government to the shared interests and the values and history of the ANZUS partners, the United States of America, New Zealand and Australia. Of course, at one stage much interest was taken in the media regarding the future of ANZUS. I am pleased to see the situation that has arisen through the actions of Mr Hayden. Two aspects of the agreement affect the Northern Territory, from which I am one of the senators. They relate to the greater defence preparedness and the greater capabilities in that area and Pine Gap. With regard to defence preparedness, in his speech Mr Hayden said that Australia's prime defence role was to build up self defence capability within our regional context. Of course, this is a very reasonable attitude to take, particularly now that Australia must be self- contained as much as possible within its defence capability. In the north, there has to be further upgrading of defence facilities. In the last few years considerable action has been taken in the setting up of patrol boat bases in Darwin and various other communications and defence measures, all of which help the potential for Australia to look after itself. In the future we should look to see the Royal Australian Air Force base at Tindal developed further. As honourable senators will know, within the last few months No. 75 Squadron has returned from Malaysia to Australia and is now based in Darwin. I hope that finance will be made available by the Government soon to ensure that the base at Tindal will be improved. This, of course, will be to the benefit of No. 75 squadron in the next few years when the Mirage squadron is replaced by the FA18 squadron. Stage 2 of Jindalee over-the-horizon radar will play a major part in Australia's defence. I look forward to that being adequately financed as well. Pine Gap is one of the joint defence facilities about which Mr Hayden said: . . . the facilities clearly represent an important reflection and instance of the shared interests which the Treaty embodies, and the government regards this form of co-operation with the United States as of unique value. Once again, I think the Government has taken a very important step. I congratulate the Government. It shows that the Government recognises that the Pine Gap base is of considerable importance. As some honourable senators will be aware, a demonstration is to be held at Pine Gap on 11 November. It has been indicated in the Centralian Advocate in Alice Springs that Labor women senators will be participating. I believe that this is an attempt to undermine Australia' s relations with the United States. I hope that this report is incorrect. I look forward to those honourable senators indicating that that report is incorrect. All this type of demonstration does is to serve Soviet interests. It is important to remember that Pine Gap is very much a joint facility. It is administered by the Department of Defence. Commonwealth police are stationed there. All in all, it is a joint defence operation. It gives employment to many hundreds of Alice Springs people. I look forward to government action in relation to the bases I have mentioned. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(5.22) —The Australian Democrats welcome this review of ANZUS which goes a long way towards demystifying this 31-year-old treaty arrangement and, by demystifying it, placing it in a reasonable context within Australia's security situation. The review indeed follows a series of statements from prominent Americans in recent years which have warned us that ANZUS is not a protective canopy which, in each and every situation, can protect Australia from attack in time of war. ANZUS is certainly not that. All reasonable Australians who have studied the Treaty and its origins with any care , therefore would agree with the words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in his statement: . . . I do not say that the Treaty guarantees Australia's national safety and welfare, nor do I place us in that posture of happy dependence that has satisfied the foreign policy ambitions of many Australians in the past both within and without this Parliament . . . we recognise that we must still pull our full weight in our own protection. The Democrats agree with those words. ANZUS came about in 1952 as part of the peace treaty with Japan. With the agony of the Pacific war still fresh in everybody's mind, its aim at that stage was to guard against another such war. The situation regarding Japan is now, of course, vastly different. We are friendly nations with considerable economic dependence on each other. The significance of ANZUS is diminished, to some extent, for that reason but also, more importantly, by the facts of modern war. In war, could any pact like ANZUS stop missiles arriving here? The answer is, of course, no. Two nuclear submarines carry enough missiles to destroy every Australian city and military installation of any size, with no hope at all of stopping any of them. As I said , this is freely conceded by the United States which has warned us several times against too great an expectation from ANZUS. The review, of course, recognises the basic community of interest between the United States and Australia. The Minister's statement, which appears at page 899 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 15 September 1983, makes this important proviso: The Treaty provisions do not derogate from Australia's right of national decisions in foreign and defence policy matters. I think it is a very important point that Australia has asserted its right to make its own decisions. Indeed, that is just as well because there is a clear message in all of this which I think the Government might well have heard. We have a major obligation to undertake our own defence and not to continue with the illusion that such self-defence is not necessary because ANZUS will do it all. There are other means at hand, of course, in the modern world for us to defend ourselves in all circumstances short of major nuclear war. Hence, the Falklands war showed that deterrent and defensive weaponry has made vast advances compared with aggressive weaponry which tends now to be increasingly expensive and less and less reliable as time goes on. Missile armed warships, even small ones, are now fast, flexible and inexpensive. They pack an enormous punch and carry, indeed, missiles which they can deliver with the same force and ability as much larger ships. Of course, those ships have their air and military equivalents. I used the words 'short of nuclear war'. What about nuclear war? Does the new, relaxed, demystified ANZUS, negotiated with the Americans by this Government, imply that, because ANZUS cannot defend us against nuclear war, it is still reasonable that we are called on to assume obligations to the United States that would make us a nuclear target? I refer, of course, to the North West Cape and Pine Gap bases in particular. In other words, we are expected to cop a nuclear attack in the interests of common defence in a situation where, short of spending billions and billions of dollars on anti-missile missiles which this country could never afford, all of those missiles could reach us easily and quickly. The statement is conspicuously silent on this matter. I ask the Government to give it some thought. It will soon be a matter of debate and vote by the Democrats. It also should be amongst the people of Australia. Certainly it is no longer a situation which should just be allowed to drift on without careful examination. Perhaps such an examination would confirm that the threat posed to us by the bases is worth while. On the other hand, it might not. This is a matter for the people of Australia to consider very carefully and soon because it is possible that our very survival as a nation might be involved in it one way or another. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes on behalf of Senator Coleman) agreed to: That the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce be renamed the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- When introducing the Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 1983, I outlined the basic features of the Government's scheme for introduction of a Medicare levy. This Bill-the Medicare Levy Bill 1983-declares the basic rate of levy. For 1983-84 the basic rate will be 0.416 per cent of taxable income, that is, five-twelfths of the full year rate of 1 per cent. The Bill also contains rules for fixing the maximum amount of levy payable and the income points below which people with low incomes will not be called on to pay any levy. As I mentioned in my speech on the first Bill, the basic rate will be reduced by one half for certain repatriation beneficiaries and service personnel who are liable for the levy because their dependants are eligible for Medicare benefits. Explanations of each clause of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum and I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. We do not wish Medibank Private to obtain a monopoly position in the private insurance market as this would sacrifice many of the cost advantages I have just outlined. For this reason we have been willing to place limitations on Medibank Private's membership so that its share of the private insurance market is restricted. The window into the private insurance market-place that Medibank Private will provide is also essential to our policy of reduced controls over the private funds' operations. We believe that private insurance can be much more effectively regulated by the use of Medibank Private as the 'honest broker' in the market. The other major argument in favour of having a single public fund operate Medicare is the timely and accurate supply of data on doctors' services in the detection of fraud and overservicing. The continuation of the present system whereby 63 different organisations supply that data means that the accumulation of doctors' profiles is dependent on the speed of the slowest fund. The Health Insurance Commission is currently the timeliest and most accurate fund in Australia, with a 99.97 per cent accuracy level in the statistical data it supplies to the Health Department for fraud and overservicing purposes. While the overall responsibility for investigating fraud and overservicing will remain with the Health Department it is pertinent to note that the Health Insurance Commission has been among the most active of the private funds in pursuing suspected cases of fraud. In fact, the amendments to the Health Insurance Act contained in clause 58 of this Bill which make bribery by a proprietor of a private hospital an offence largely came about through the efforts of Medibank Private in pursuing what it correctly considered to be a rip-off of contributors ' funds, but which the inadequacy of the current laws prevented it taking to court. The final factor in favour of having the HIC administer Medicare was that, as I outlined earlier, the Government would find it impossible to entrust such an important program to the private funds, considering their opposition to Labor's health policies throughout the past decade. While there would be a relationship of trust if the Health Department were to operate Medicare, it would have neither the experience to administer such a large benefit payments organisation nor the administrative efficiency that accrued to the HIC through its five years of operation in the private market. In seeking consensus with the private funds on the introduction of the Medicare program the Government has offered a range of concessions. There are three main reasons for the concessions announced: Firstly, to guarantee a continuing substantial role for the private funds and ensure Medibank private could not gain unfair commercial advantage through the Health Insurance Commission's operation of Medicare; Secondly, to minimise the possibility of redundancies caused by Medicare's introduction; and Thirdly, because Medicare will provide basic cover to all Australians there is no longer a need for the Government to regulate the funds' operations so closely. Clause 73 of the Bill gives the Minister a general power of direction from the Health Insurance Commission. All directions made by the Minister must be set out in the annual report which is subsequently tabled in the Parliament. Once the Parliament has agreed to this power of direction I will be making three directions in relation to Medibank Private's operations. Firstly, Medibank Private membership will be limited in each State and on each table to the numbers as at 30 June 1983. Secondly, Medibank Private operations will be limited to their present 195 offices. The greater overall work volumes following Medicare's introduction may mean some transfers to larger premises at an equivalent site. However, Medibank Private will not be able to operate from the 86 new Medicare offices which will be opened before 1 February 1984. Thirdly, to ensure that the Health Insurance Commission's operation of Medicare and Medibank Private does not give Medibank Private an unfair advantage in lower administrative costs that could be passed on in lower contribution rates, I will be directing that the management component of all their contribution rates must reflect average industry costs. These directions under section 8J of the Health Insurance Act will apply up to 30 June 1986, at which time these policies will be reviewed. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 so that provisions relating to health funding will be consistent with the Medicare arrangements, agreed upon at the 30 June-1 July 1983 Premiers Conference, due to commence on 1 February 1984. Under the Medicare program, additional public hospital funding will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory to ensure that these governments are not financially disadvantaged by the introduction of Medicare into their public hospital systems . At the same time, it is proposed that the existing funding arrangements under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act will continue separately at least until its expiry on 30 June 1985. Health grants have been payable to the States and the Northern Territory under the Act since 1 July 1981. They replaced grants payable under the hospital cost- sharing agreements for States, other than South Australia and Tasmania, whose hospital cost-sharing agreements were to continue to the end of 1984-85, and the Northern Territory, and payments for community health and school dental programs for all States and the Northern Territory. These health funding arrangements, involving grants for general purposes but identifiable as a Commonwealth contribution towards the cost of health programs, were seen by the previous Government as an interim step towards full absorption of health grants into tax sharing grants. While those States no longer receiving hospital cost-sharing payments are not necessarily required under the current legislation to expend their identified health grants on the provision of health services, they accept these grants under certain conditions. In particular, the existing legislation requires the States, other than South Australia and Tasmania, and the Northern Territory to provide free access to accommodation and treatment in public hospitals to all eligible pensioners and persons in special need, and their dependants. The legislation also requires these States to furnish certain information concerning the provision of these services. The Medicare proposals have two implications for the health funding arrangements which I have just outlined. First, South Australia and Tasmania have agreed to participate in the Medicare compensation arrangements on the condition that they terminate their hospital cost-sharing agreements with the Commonwealth on 31 January 1984. Secondly, the Medicare compensation payments are to be provided to the States and the Northern Territory on conditions which include, among other things, that they provide accommodation and treatment in public hospitals without charge to all Australian residents who do not elect to be treated as private patients. The States and the Northern Territory will also be required to make available a range of health statistics to the Commonwealth. The amendments proposed in this Bill, therefore, provide for South Australia and Tasmania to receive, from 1 February 1984, health grants under this Act in place of grants payable under the hospital cost-sharing agreements. As a result, this aspect of their health funding arrangements with the Commonwealth will be brought more into line with arrangements currently applying in all other States and the Northern Territory. Nevertheless, these changed arrangements largely preserve in 1983-84 and 1984-85 the relative benefit which will have accrued to both these States from the continuation of their hospital cost-sharing agreements with the Commonwealth after 30 June 1981. In 1983-84, South Australia and Tasmania will each receive an addition to their identified health grant after 1 February based on the amount that each would have received had their hospital cost-sharing agreements run for the whole of 1983-84 in the absence of the Medicare arrangements. In 1984-85, this additional identified health grant payable will be equal to the amount otherwise payable for the whole of 1983-84, escalated in line with the growth in total Commonwealth tax collections in 1983-84 over 1982-83. This is consistent with the treatment of the health grants provided to other States and the Northern Territory under the current arrangements. The Bill also removes the conditions imposed on the States under the current arrangements in respect of free hospital services and associated data requirements. It is proposed that the conditions which the Government requires to be met by the states in the hospitals area will be imposed as conditions of the Medicare compensation grants to be payable under the Health Insurance Act. The provisions contained in this Bill are important elements in the Government's overall Medicare policy of providing all Australians with ready access to medical and hospital services. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the related levy Bills not only represent a major social reform, but are an essential part of the Government's economic strategy. Not only do they embody a health insurance system that is simple, fair and affordable, but they represent an advance in the social wage and our accord with the trade union movement, and in moderating the impact of inflation. Medicare will play its part in economic recovery. This legislation embodies one of the major policies this Government placed before the people of Australia last March-and for which a clear and unequivocal mandate was received from the Australian people. Let there be no doubt about that fact-Medicare was a central plank in our platform. It was discussed extensively prior to the campaign and debated exhaustively during the campaign. Unlike our predecessors, who shied away from any discussion of health policy at election after election, the Australian Labor Party placed firmly and squarely before the Australian people the health policies which are incorporated in this legislation. The tortured, contradictory and reactionary policies of our predecessors have led us back into the past. In 1969 Justice Nimmo wrote: The operation of the health insurance scheme is unnecessarily complex and beyond the comprehension of many. And to quote further: The contributions have increased to such an extent that they are beyond the capacity of some members of the community and involve considerable hardship for others. That is a statement from the 1969 report on health insurance, but we defy any impartial observer to say that these statements are not equally true of today. It is a measure of the circular nature of health policy in this country, and the waste of the last seven years of Fraser government, that we are here today fighting battles that should have been finally decided a decade ago. Mr Fraser's tragically broken promise that 'we will maintain Medibank' given in November 1975 has led us inexorably back into the past, back into dependence on those old Liberal allies, the private health funds, to run basic health insurance. The Fraser Government departed in March this year, leaving behind a health insurance scheme almost identical with that of its predecessor, the McMahon Government of a decade ago, with all its flaws, with all its inequities, discriminations and confusions. What Mr Fraser bequeathed this country was a health scheme lacking in both universality and fairness. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey shows that 1,953,000 Australians were without any health cover through either private insurance or the Commonwealth cover provided to pensioners, the unemployed and low income earners. The current health scheme has increased basic private insurance premiums to approximately $14 a week for a family. If we were not introducing the Medicare program on 1 February next year the cost of a ward bed in a public hospital throughout Australia would be $130 a day, and premiums would have risen even higher still. For those lower and middle income earners who do take health insurance, the costs have become a substantial strain on the family budget. The task facing the Hawke Government is thus much the same as that faced by the Whitlam Government, and we are proud that our solutions are much the same. Unfortunately, the Fraser Government's gutting of the Medibank name and concept have meant that the word itself developed unfavourable connotations. Medibank has become linked in many people's minds with the seven years of confusion under the previous Government. But we do not resile from openly stating that the principles of the Medicare plan are similar to those of Medibank as it was originally introduced in 1975. There are two important differences. Medicare will be substantially self-funding through the 1 per cent levy and a rearrangement of existing health insurance subsidies, whereas Medibank placed a considerable strain on Consolidated Revenue. That was due to an obstructionist Senate, which encouraged by the Australian Medical Association, the private funds and the other voices of reaction of the time, repeatedly rejected the Medibank enabling legislation. The Medibank Bills were only eventually passed at the Joint Sitting which followed the 1974 double dissolution, but unfortunately the levy Bills did not meet the criteria for submission to the Joint Sitting. We are pleased to say that while there has still been considerable opposition to our health insurance proposals, on this occasion the debate has been much more reasoned and rational in its tone. Our opponents have for the most part restricted themselves to differences of opinion, rather than the litany of distortions and alarums of 1973 and 1974. Secondly, the arrangements for reimbursing the States are different this time. I will go into the details of the current proposals later, but let me say that we think this difference reflects the tougher economic circumstances of the 1980s. Also, this Government is concerned to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are allocated to areas of greatest need. So our payments to the States represent a fair reimbursement of revenue that will be lost through removal of public hospital charges, rather than a generous increase in overall funding for all the States, except in the case of Queensland where the unique situation of Queensland's public hospital system is recognised by a $35m special grant in a full year over and above compensation payments. We have sought in planning Medicare to produce a simple, fair, affordable insurance system that provides basic health cover to all Australians. In designing the Medicare program these four attributes have been uppermost in the Goverment's mind. I refer firstly to simplicity. The simpler we make a health scheme the more chance it has of delivering the services to those who need the most. The more complex a health scheme, the more likely it is to favour the well -off, the articulate and those capable of manipulating a complex system. While the nearly two million people without health insurance or Commonwealth health protection are mostly low and middle income earners, the complexity of the current arrangements also allows the rich to avoid contributing to the community pool of health dollars collected through the insurance system. For those well enough off to meet their health bills throughout the year, and with a range of taxation deductions available through a careful arrangement of their financial affairs, health insurance is an unnecessary waste of money. Spared the cost of insurance premiums, they also know that the majority of their health bills will be refunded through the taxation system. In contrast to those who have lawyers and accountants to organise their affairs , low income earners are expected to be able to cope by themselves with the bureaucratic complexity of the health care card system. An itinerant labourer on varying weekly incomes is asked to average his income from the last four weeks, check to see it is less than $193 a week for a married couple, and notify the Department of Social Security if his income exceeds that average by more than 25 per cent in any one week. It is little wonder that many do not apply, as indicated in the 1982 health insurance survey details which showed that well over half a million people entitled to a government concession card were paying for private medical and hospital cover. Under Medicare people will not have to worry about falling behind in their payments and being caught with substantial bills. Every Australian resident will be covered automatically and the 1 per cent payment will be made along with, but separately identified from, the tax instalments in the weekly or fortnightly pay packet. For those who do not have pay-as-you-earn deductions the health levy payment will be calculated as part of their annual payment of income tax. Medicare will provide basic health cover free of the hassles and worries of the current private insurance scheme. It will also make health insurance fairer and affordable to every Australian because everyone will contribute towards the nation's health costs according to his or her ability to pay. This is in stark contrast to the current scheme, where the flat rate contribution means that a family earning just above the income limits for a health care card must pay 7.2 per cent of its total income toward basic health cover, whereas a family on $50, 000 a year pays only 1.4 per cent of its income for exactly the same cover. Medicare has income thresholds below which no levy is payable. The limits for this year will be $128.80 a week for a single person, and $214.25 a week for a married couple, increasing by a further $21.15 a week for each dependent child within a family. The threshold has been set at these levels to ensure that everyone who currently receives free health cover through a pensioner health benefits card, or a health care card for the unemployed and low income earners, will not have to pay the levy under Medicare. The current system has different income limits for different entitlement cards so that pensioners can earn more than a low income earner and retain their health concession card. This discrimination is removed under Medicare as the same income thresholds will apply for everyone. Because we have adopted the higher pensioner income limits approximately 200,000 people who now just miss out on a low income health card will receive basic health cover under Medicare without having to pay any levy. Medicare will provide the same entitlement to basic medical benefits, and treatment in a public hospital by the hospital's doctors, to every Australian resident regardless of income. This universality of cover is obviously desirable from an equity point of view. In a society as wealthy as ours there should not be people putting off treatment because they cannot afford the bills. Basic health care should be the right of every Australian. We reject the arguments of those opposite who say providing cover to everyone will encourage overuse of health services. There is no reason to expect that the two million Australians currently without any cover will use medical and hospital services more than the rest of the community, and to restrain overall health costs by excluding those two million people from treatment except in the direst emergency, as the current scheme does, is not a situation which this-or any other humane government-would allow. Beyond this obvious matter of principle , universality of cover also has many advantages in terms of efficiency and reduced administrative costs. Doctors and hospitals will have their bad debt problems removed overnight. This will significantly reduce doctors' practice overheads and in public hospitals reduce the amount of bureaucracy required to check whether you are entitled to free treatment, record your private fund membership or chase you for payment if you fall into neither category. There are also significant advantages through universality in reduced payment delays for doctors and lower overall administration costs in paying medical claims through a single public fund, but I will go into those matters in more detail later. However, it is important to state unequivocally right now that one of the Government's major objectives through the Medicare program is having the maximum number of health dollars spent on delivering health services rather than administering them. The conservatives opposite, through their opposition to Medicare, would lock governments and private practitioners into continued unnecessary waste on insurance services that have nothing to do with improving the health status of the Australian people. That should alert all of us to the fact that their opposition has nothing to do with principles or ideals-of which they are singularly bereft. Rather it is simple political expediency, and opposing for the sake of opposing, that has characterised many of their hollow statements on this issue so far. I come now to the precise implementation of those proposals in the Bill before the Senate. Firstly, I refer to those who are eligible for Medicare benefits. They will be available to all persons ordinarily resident in Australia with the exception of members of diplomatic missions and other dependants. The Bill provides that the Minister for Health may make written declarations regarding the eligibility of persons or groups of persons who may or may not be entitled to Medicare benefits. To this point, the Government has agreed that eligible persons will include: All permanent Australian residents, (including repatriation beneficiaries and defence force personnel); persons visiting Australia to obtain approval to stay for at least six months, with eligibility to date from arrival in Australia; persons visiting Australia who originally obtain approval to stay less than six months, but who are granted an extension which makes the total approved stay more than six months with the eligibility to date from when the extension was granted; persons visiting Australia who are residents of countries with whom Australia may in the future negotiate a reciprocal health care agreement; persons who are residents of certain neighbouring countries who come to Australia for specialist hospital care, subject to rules laid down by State Health Authorities; and Australian residents receiving medical services while travelling overseas. Medicare benefits will be payable at the same rate and for the same range of services as are currently provided by the private funds on their basic medical benefits table. Clause 12 of this Bill sets out the rate of Medicare benefits, which will be 85 per cent of the schedule fee, with a maximum patient contribution of $10 for any one item where the schedule fee is charged. The same level of benefit will be payable for all types of patients and replaces the present confusing and complex arrangements which provide for different levels of Commonwealth benefits according to type of patient and method of billing by providers. This change is an essential component of Medicare and will provide for equity, simplicity and efficiency. The move to a single level of Medicare benefits for all will mean a reduction in benefits presently payable for pensioner services and disadvantaged persons' services, with an increase in maximum gap from $5 to $10. However, this will not affect benefits payable for most general practitioner consultations and the effect on other benefits is only marginal. The Australian Democrats drew attention to the fact that there are circumstances where the requirement for the payment of the patient contribution could impose some financial hardship on individuals who suffer from chronic illnesses or disabilities. Such hardship would come about because of their requirement for regular medical treatment involving, on each occasion, the payment of a patient contribution of a maximum amount of $10 for each medical service where the schedule fee was charged. The Government, in considering the Democrats proposal, recognised that, in addition to people with chronic illnesses, there are individuals who suffer catastrophic illness which may involve a large number of medical services during the acute phase of the illness. The Government considers that such individuals should also receive protection against the financial burden imposed by such an illness. Clause 12 provides for the protection of each Australian against any substantial medical costs which must be met by patients in excess of the Medicare medical benefit at 85%/$10 for each service. It is provided that, where a person, by way of patient contributions, is required in any one year to meet aggregate patient contributions of more than $150, being made up of the differences between the Medicare medical benefits and the fees charged by the medical practitioners concerned, where those fees are equal to the schedule fee or less, Medicare medical benefit in respect of medical expenses incurred in that year will be payable by the Health Insurance Commission at the rate of 100% of the medical benefits schedule fee. This means that, after the patient has paid an aggregate amount so that the $150 threshold in any one year has been reached, he or she will not be required to meet the difference between the Medicare medical benefit and the schedule fee for the remainder of the year. That difference will be paid as an additional Medicare benefit. This will apply also to Australian residents who have medical services rendered to them overseas. It would not apply to assigned medical benefits accepted in full payment by the practitioner for the service rendered, since there is no patient contribution in such circumstances. In respect of the period from 1 February 1984 to 30 June 1984, the full year amount of $150 will be adjusted on a pro rata basis to ensure that individuals are not disadvantaged in the first five months operation of Medicare. The Government considers that the provisions of clause 12 would provide substantial protection against episodes of substantial medical costs for all Australians and in particular those unfortunate Australians who, because of chronic illness require regular medical treatment. The range of services covered by Medicare benefits comprises medical practitioners, certain surgical procedures rendered by approved dental surgeons, consultation services rendered by participating optometrists and services by accredited dental practitioners in the treatment of cleft lip and cleft palate conditions. Medicare benefits cover the full range of doctors' services including treatment by specialists, surgery, and diagnostic services such as radiology and pathology. They are also payable for medical services rendered to in-patients of public and private hospitals. Following the entry into formal agreements by each State and the Northern Territory with the Commonwealth, all persons eligible for Medicare benefits will also be entitled to public hospital in-patient accommodation and treatment without charge, where that treatment is provided by a doctor appointed by the hospital. Out-patient treatment in public hospitals will also be provided without charge. Arrangements currently applying whereby benefits are not payable for medical and hospital services to compensable patients-that is, motor vehicle , third party and workers' compensation services-will remain unchanged under Medicare. However, the Minister for Health intends to examine together with the States and the general insurance industry whether it may be possible to simplify the administrative arrangements for these services at some future date. To avoid a situation of one Commonwealth agency raising charges for which another Commonwealth agency is required to pay benefits, the Government has decided that charges currently raised for services received from Commonwealth Pathology Laboratories or Commonwealth medical officers will cease from 1 February 1984. Under Medicare doctors will be able to elect to direct bill for any patient and the Medicare benefit will be paid in full settlement of the account for that service. The present direct billing arrangements are limited to pensioner health benefit, health care and health benefit cardholders. There is also currently a three-tiered system of Commonwealth medical benefits-85 per cent for pensioners and the disadvantaged, 30 per cent for the privately insured and nil for the remainder. Because of this categorisation of entitlement the previous Government decided that a person's eligibility for benefits has to be established before any payment can be made. This bureaucratic maze of cross-checking between the number on the assignment voucher and Social Security's entitlement records is the major reason for the current unacceptable delay in doctors receiving payment for their direct billed claims. The introduction of these checks earlier this year increased the number of claims being rejected from 5.5 per cent to 14.0 per cent and therefore increased the number of claims requiring double handling by over 150 per cent. The Health Department's somewhat antiquated computer hardware and systems and the previous Government's unresponsive attitude to increasing processing staff numbers as the lengthening dole queues increased the number of people eligible for direct billing are also partly responsible for the current delays. The Minister for Health has recently approved the employment of 111 temporary staff to help reduce the backlogs, but as long as we remain with the present insurance system it will be difficult to provide an acceptable turnaround time on claims. However, the Government is confident that because Medicare provides the same rate of benefit to all Australians and therefore removes the need for eligibility checking-combined with the modern, on-line processing systems of the Health Insurance Commission-the delay between lodgement of direct bill claims and receiving payment will be reduced to one to two weeks. Once this level of service is established and well known it is expected that many doctors will take advantage of the direct billing system. The greater the use of direct billing the lower administrative costs will become for doctors and the Government and the lower the cost of seeking treatment will become for the patient. After the introduction of Medicare it is desirable that the private health insurance funds be able to wind down their medical benefit activities as soon as possible. The Bill therefore provides that benefit claims for medical services received prior to 1 February 1984 should be lodged with the relevant health benefits fund by 31 January 1985-that is, within 12 months as opposed to two years under the current arrangements. Where there is good reason for a claim to be lodged later than this date, or where the 'cut off' would impose undue hardship, the Minister will have discretion to allow a longer period. For services rendered after the introduction of Medicare the current time limits will apply. They are for direct billed claims to be lodged within six months of the date of service and for patient billed claims to be lodged within two years. In line with the recommendations of the 1980 Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals appointed by the previous Government we will be legislating to prevent both private health funds and general insurers from offering cover for the 'gap' between the Medicare benefit and the schedule fee. The reason for this is quite simple and practical. As the AMA stated in evidence to the Jamison inquiry: Doctors generally believe that there should be a charge at the point of service . In this report Jamison noted that 'it'-gap insurance-'underpins the practice of fixing charges above the schedule fee'. Therefore, if we allowed gap insurance we would not be saving people money. They would simply be paying $2 from their own pocket on top of their 100 per cent of schedule fee rebate, instead of $2 for the difference between the Medicare benefit and the schedule fee on a standard GP consultation. This would be in addition to the insurance premium for the gap cover, so overall most people are financially better off without gap insurance. It is only doctors who would be financially better off if gap insurance were permitted. For all of these reasons the Government will not allow gap insurance to be offered. In this way doctors will be encouraged to limit their charge to a level around the schedule fee and this will be important in containing Australia's overall health bill. As I have already indicated the Government is fully aware of the special circumstances of the chronically ill and those facing catastrophic illness or injury in relation to patient contributions. These special circumstances will be accommodated by the provisons of clause 12 of the Bill, which I have already described, limiting the extent of such payments to $150 in a year. The private health funds will be able to offer insurance that supplements the basic cover provided by Medicare. All organisations registered under the National Health Act will offer that insurance in accordance with the community rating principle, which is that everyone pays the same contribution rate regardless of age, sex, family size or medical condition. The only exception is that single persons pay half the family rate. This is different to Medicare because Medicare is not an insurance plan in the commercial sense. Under Medicare persons do not contribute to ensure cover for themselves or their family for a specific period. Rather they will contribute towards a national health pool according to their income. Whether a person is single or a family member does not affect the ability to pay except in determining the low income thresholds for levy payments. All Australians will be entitled to the same Medicare cover and so they will draw from this pool according to their health needs. In this way Medicare is more a social service scheme, so it is inappropriate to differentiate between married and single people for determining their health levy payment. People wishing to have private treatment in a public hospital or treatment in a private hospital will be able to insure for these costs. At the time of the election we planned that the basic private table would offer a benefit equal to the private bed charge in a public hospital. This charge was subsequently set at $80 a day. While it was always intended that this level of benefit would be payable in private as well as public hospitals the private hospital organisations pointed out that this level of benefit would not cover the cost of many private hospitals. It would therefore be necessary to have probably three additional hospital tables supplementing the basic private table at different benefit levels. Such a gaggle of tables would only have created confusion and uncertainty and we were conscious of the dangers of creating a situation where sharp movements in hospitalisation patterns from the private to the public sector were likely. To simplify the hospital insurance options under Medicare and to prevent any shift occurring, the Government has decided to introduce a system of categorisation of private hospitals, to which I will refer in more detail later. What this categorisation system means to the general public is that differential benefits are paid from the basic private table, so this table will provide cover for private treatment in a public hospital and shared ward accommodation in most private hospitals. The range of benefit levels contained within the basic private table means that we expect there will need to be only one further supplementary hospital table providing cover for higher cost or single room accommodation and additional charges such as theatre or labour ward fees. It should be emphasised that there will be no need for anyone to take out hospital insurance if they are satisfied with the care provided in public hospitals by doctors employed on a salary or sessional basis by the hospital. For those who do want private treatment in hospital the basic private insurance premium will be about $5 a week for a family. Except for the introduction of Medicare public hospital charges would be rising to $130 a day throughout Australia by early 1984, and basic medical and hospital insurance premiums would be on average $14.50 a week for a family. Because the abolition of the private insurance tax rebate is part of the funding of Medicare, that $14.50 basic premium becomes a cost of $10.15 a week after allowing for the 30 per cent rebate. On this basis a family would have to be earning more than $515 a week or $26,780 per annum before total health cover-that is, the Medicare levy and the private treatment in hospital cover-became more expensive under Medicare than under the current scheme. After allowing for two income families, it is still the case that two out of three Australian families earn less than $515 a week and will therefore pay less for this level of cover under Medicare than under the present scheme. I now turn to ancillary tables or extras cover for dental and paramedical services, which has been a relatively neglected area of health insurance. The private funds currently generate most of their income from basic medical and hospital insurance, but with the medical sector removed they will be expanding the range and level of their ancillary benefits. People will be able to obtain cover for services such as dentistry, physiotherapy, home nursing, chiropractic and chiropody from these tables as well as the costs of aids and appliances such as artificial limbs and wheelchairs. Funds will no longer be able to restrict the membership of the extras table by requiring a person to be a member of another table also. With the reduced cost of basic cover to most people through the Medicare levy, these extras tables will prove an attractive option for many people. The Government believes that its role is in providing basic medical and hospital cover, and the decision on whether to take ancillary cover is then left to the individual. The other limiting factor is that inclusion of any or all of these extra services into Medicare would substantially increase its costs and therefore the levy would have to rise. This is undesirable in terms of offering people basic health cover at the lowest possible cost. The National Health Act currently provides that a waiting period of up to two months may be applied before basic benefits are payable. It is proposed that this two-month waiting period will be maintained for the private table under Medicare, but that a nine-month waiting period will apply for obstetric cases. Furthermore, because of the 'safety net' of free public hospital treatment under Medicare, it is considered unreasonable that persons should be able to take out private insurance specifically for hospital treatment for known illnesses. Accordingly, organisations will be permitted to apply a waiting period for benefits for pre-existing ailments of up to two years after a contributor joins an organisation or transfers to a higher table of benefit. It should be noted that section 81A of the Act becomes inoperative after 1 February 1984. This provides that pensioners and disadvantaged persons who lose their entitlement to free care under the present scheme will be entitled to take out private insurance for basic cover without the need to serve waiting periods. That is the present position. This provision will not be necessary as under Medicare every Australian will be automatically entitled to the same basic cover. A fundamental principle of the Medicare arrangements is that every Australian should be entitled to public hospital accommodation and treatment by the hospital's doctors without charge. Against this background, the Bill will enable the Commonwealth to enter into formal agreements with the States and the Northern Territory in relation to the provision of public hospital and other health services. Heads of agreement, attached as a schedule to the Bill, provide the parameters for the agreements, which are required to be substantially in accordance with those heads. The agreements will, on the one hand, specify the range of public hospital services which the States are to provide without charge to eligible persons and, on the other, the financial arrangements to apply under which the Commonwealth will reimburse the States for revenue losses and any additional costs incurred in providing such services. The grants will comprise payments for: Revenue losses and additional costs resulting from the removal of all in- patients and out-patients fees in respect of patients who elect to be treated free as public patients in public hospitals; revenue losses resulting from a reduction in fees for private patients in public hospitals; provision for the future payment by States of daily bed subsidies to private hospitals from the block grants (from, it is expected, 1 July 1985); the payment of grants for community health purposes; and provision for escalation of or variation to components of grants. These compensatory grants will be additional to, and independent of, the identified health grants currently paid to the States within the Federal-State general tax sharing arrangements. The current estimate for such payments- excluding community health funds-to the States and the Northern Territory and in respect of the Australian Capital Territory for the period 1 February 1984 to 30 June 1984 is $198m. The estimate in respect of full year funding is $709m. Included in these payments to the States is the offer of a special grant to Queensland of $15m in 1983-84 and $35m in a full year. These grants are offered to ensure that all States receive marginally more in additional receipts from the Medicare program than they contribute in additional outlays. The following table illustrates how the Medicare financial arrangements are broken up between the States: Estimates of net outlays on Medicare, by State, full year (6m) NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas (a) Total Additional Outlays (b) (d) 629 484 220 163 163 57 1762 Additional receipts (and reduced outlays) (c) 621 472 212 145 143 45 1680 Net outlays +8 +12 +8 +18 + 20 +12 +82 (a) Includes Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory. (b) These include outlays for medical and optical benefits, compensation for revenue losses due to reduction and abolition of charges in public hospitals, special grant to Queensland, increases in subsidies to be paid to private hospitals, gross establishment and administration costs, and increased outlays for the expansion of community health services. (c) These include savings on the reduction in contributions to the Re-insurance Trust Fund, revenue from the introduction of a one per cent levy on taxable income, and savings from the abolition of the present income tax rebate on health insurance. This table clearly shows that Queensland is not subsidising any other State, as the Queensland Premier is so fond of claiming in his desperate attempt to retain power by whatever means. In fact Queensland is the only State government which has its overall health funding situation improved by Medicare. All the other States are receiving grants which simply compensate them for revenue lost by removing and reducing charges. The Queensland public hospital system is being compensated for its revenue losses and receiving a special grant to revitalise its hospital services on top of this, and that is a recognition of the unique situation in Queensland. Every cent raised through Medicare in Queensland is being returned to Queensland, and the State Government will receive far more in health funding from the Hawke Government than it received in the last two years under Mr Fraser. Last year the Queensland Government received $93m in health funding from the Commonwealth Government. In the first full year of Medicare Queensland will receive $173m. Only Mr Bjelke-Petersen in an election year could complain about that sort of deal. In addition to specifying the financial formulae to apply to the compensatory grants, the agreements will also encompass other essential matters, including the requirement that public hospital admissions be solely on the basis of medical need, without regard to health insurance status; and the Commonwealth- State consultative arrangements which will be set in train so that the financial and operational arrangements can be monitored and modified as necessary in the mutual interests of the Commonwealth and the States. This consultative process will also consider matters such as the development of peer review and hospital audits, the expansion of hospital accreditation, and the development of certificates of need for high technology equipment. The Government believes that these measures all have scope for achieving economies in the area that is unquestionably the most substantial generator of health costs in this country. The purpose of these consultative arrangements is to give effect to the Government's belief that the Commonwealth has a positive role in the broad national policy and planning aspects of public hospital provision. For a considerable time, concern has been expressed by Commonwealth and State health Ministers about rights of private practice for salaried doctors in public hospitals. This concern has arisen partly from the variety of arrangements and schemes under which salaried doctors exercise their private practice rights, lack of detailed knowledge about how such schemes operate, and how the funds available under those schemes are applied. Receipt of medical benefits income by staff specialists provides them with a source of income, over and above their salaries determinations, which is generally accrued during the same working hours in which those salaries are payable. In effect, there is a double payment mechanism operating. The doctors receive a full salary, which can be considered to be drawn from both State and Commonwealth revenue to the extent that each contributes from State revenue sources and from Commonwealth cost sharing- identified health grant payments towards the cost of health services. Over and above that, the Commonwealth pays again through medical benefits. At this point let me assure the Senate that the Government has no intention that rights of private practice arrangements be abolished; rather, that appropriate control mechanisms be developed. The concerns about the operations of private practice rights particularly relate to diagnostic services and some therapeutic services- pathology, radiology, radiotherapy and nuclear medicine- where there is not usually any direct doctor-patient contact, where there is substantial scope for generating additional revenue, and where there is a significant technical content to the service which is provided by the hospital rather than the doctor. For this reason the Bill provides that Medicare medical benefits are payable only for diagnostic services provided to in-patients and out-patients of public hospitals if the service is provided pursuant to a contract between the medical practitioner rendering the service and the hospital granting a right of private practice, in a form accepted by the Commonwealth Minister. It has been agreed with State Ministers that the content of the contract will be: A All accounts to be raised by the hospital on behalf of the doctor. B All charges to be at or below schedule fee. C All revenue received for diagnostic services rendered under private practice contracts for full time specialists in a particular hospital to be treated as one fund. D The fund to be applied in the following order: 1 Facility charges (recovery of costs) to the hospital in a form acceptable to the Commonwealth Minister. 2 Drawings by the doctor at a level determined by the State, up to 25 per cent of full time specialist salary. 3 Any residual to be applied following guidelines set by the State Ministers for Health. Officers are currently negotiating with State health officials on how the conditions for visiting diagnostic specialists could be more equitable when compared with those proposed for salaried staff. However, I would stress again that these measures will be aimed at ensuring accountability measures are introduced into rights of private practice, and not at removing those rights. The Government has also expressed considerable interest in reactivating community health services as a viable and less costly alternative to the more expensive institutional services, and, as a consequence, will be supporting this aspect of health care under the Medicare arrangements. The formal agreements with the States and the Northern Territory to which I referred earlier will also make provision for the funding of new and/or expanded community health services. The sum of $7.2m will be provided to the States, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory for such purposes for the period 1 February to 30 June 1984, and a total of $18m in a full year. In addition the Commonwealth will retain $0.8m in 1983-84 and $2m in a full year for allocation to community health projects of national significance. With these funds I was able to make a grant of $100,000 a year for the next three years to the Lidcombe Workers Health Centre so that it can continue as Australia 's leading centre in dealing with occupational accidents and disease. The additional $20m in a full year will restore community health spending to the 1975 real levels of expenditure. As I indicated earlier when referring to the basic private table to be offered by the health funds after 1 February next year, private hospitals are to be categorised, and the daily insurance benefit and Commonwealth bed subsidy will vary according to that categorisation. The reason for categorisation is that the steep increases in public hospital charges over the past two years have allowed private hospitals to piggy back their fee increases in line with those increases . That is reasonable in so far as the increases reflected increases in costs, but most of the increase resulted from the Fraser Government's $228m reduction in health funding to the States over those two years. This was a 32 per cent cut in the real level of health funding to the States. Private hospitals are a very diverse range of institutions. At one extreme are the major surgical hospitals, mostly run by religious or charitable organisations, which provide a level of care and services comparable with that in the major public hospitals. At the other extreme are bush nursing and other small hospitals, generally located in rural areas, which, except for a few beds, provide a service similar to that of a nursing home. What is striking under the present insurance system is that, despite the large difference in cost structures brought about by the different level of care provided, the insurance benefits they receive are almost the same. So while the acute hospitals require this level of fees to survive, there is a substantial scope for profit in the medical or nursing hospitals. By categorising private hospitals the benefit and bed subsidy they receive will be much more closely related to their services and cost structure. We are proposing a 3-tiered structure so that category A hospitals receive a $120 a day basic benefit and a $40 a day Commonwealth bed subsidy; category B receive a $ 100 a day benefit and $30 a day subsidy; and category C an $80 a day benefit and $20 bed subsidy. The total cover in the three categories of private hospital will therefore be $160 a day, $130 a day, and $100 a day. The Government believes that categorisation will allow the health fund's basic private table to offer cover for a shared room in most private hospitals, provided the industry is prepared to accept that from 1 February 1984 the benefit will reflect reasonable cost levels rather than the inflated fees that some hospitals charge now. The categorisation will follow principles laid down by the Minister in regulations made under section 23H of the Health Insurance Act. The principles for categorisation will reflect factual measures of the type of services provided in the hospital. However the Minister will have due regard to the opinion of the State Minister before finally determining the hospital's category . Clause 45 of this Bill makes the Minister's decision on categorisation subject to administrative review by the Minister and also appealable to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal where a private hospital proprietor believes his hospital has not been correctly categorised in accordance with the principles as set down. The Commonwealth currently allocates $86.7m to the private hospital industry through the bed day subsidy. The increased subsidy levels under Medicare mean that a further $46.5m will be allocated in the first full year of Medicare. The Government believes that the States should have the major role in planning the total health services available in the community. For this reason we believe that the daily bed payment to private hospitals would be more appropriately paid by the States. Most State health Ministers accept the logic of this transfer of functions. However they consider it to be legislatively and administratively impossible to have it in place by 1 February 1984. For this reason the Commonwealth will continue to make the daily bed subsidy payment to 30 June 1985 , but individual States can take over the function prior to that date if they wish. The Government is aware of the shortcomings of the current arrangements relating to patients who are accommodated in either private or recognised hospitals for extended periods, and who are, in essence, nursing home-type patients. The existing arrangements for classifying long stay patients provide that after 60 days continuous hospitalisation patients are reclassified as nursing home-type patients and are required to make a non-insurable patient contribution towards the cost of accommodation, in the same way that a patient in a nursing home does. The fund benefit payable in a public hospital is reduced to the level of the standard nursing home benefit. In a private hospital the hospital's charge is reduced by the amount of the patient contribution. Where the patient's doctor considers that the patient has a continuing need for acute hospital care, the doctor may issue a certificate under section 3B of the Health Insurance Act in which case the nursing home-type arrangements do not apply. Currently there is no review mechanism relating to the issue of such certificates. The Government considers these arrangements to be unsatisfactory and, as a result, this Bill reduces from 60 days to 35 days the period after which a patient is automatically reclassified as a nursing home-type patient, unless an acute care certificate is issued by the patient's doctor. In deciding to reduce the statutory period to 35 days, the Government had regard to the fact that this is five times the average length of stay in hospitals. A further refinement of the current arrangements will be the establishment of a review mechanism in the form of acute care advisory committees which may review a medical practioner's decision to issue a certificate and recommend to the Director-General of Health that such a decision be affirmed, varied or revoked. From 1 February 1984, the new nursing home-type patient arrangements will apply in all States, with their introduction in New South Wales from that date. The effect of these new arrangements will be that an insured patient in a private hospital who is classified as a nursing home-type patient will be paid $80 per day less the patient contribution. The payment will be frozen at this level until such time as it is equal to the standard nursing home benefit plus patient contribution. Private hospitals will then be receiving the same amount as public hospitals for their long stay patients. However, the Commonwealth daily bed subsidy will be paid at the rate applicable to the category of hospital in which the patient is accommodated. For a nursing home-type patient in a recognised hospital, who elects to be treated as a private patient, the current arrangements will continue to apply; that is fund hospital benefit reduces to the standard nursing home benefit. In the case of public patients there will be no accommodation charge, but the patient contribution will still be payable. Clause 67 of the Bill amends the Health Insurance Commission Act to confer the Medicare functions of the Commission. The Health Insurance Commission will act as a single public fund for the provision of Medicare benefits to the Australian people. There are several reasons for the Government taking this decision after careful consideration of all the options for administering Medicare benefits. Firstly, it is undeniable that the single fund will be able to perform the task equally efficiently but at a much lower cost. The 1981-82 report by the Department of Health on the operations of the health funds showed total medical fund management expenses of $148.4m, of which $98m can be apportioned to the cost of providing basic medical benefits. In determining the overall cost of administering basic medical benefits under the current health scheme the $20m per annum cost to the Health Department of administering direct billing for pensioners, the unemployed and low income earners must also be considered. Taking these two amounts together the cost of administering basic medical benefits payments is to the order of $130m in 1983-84 dollars. The Commission will administer the same benefit payments for $86m in a full year. This is a saving of $40m per annum when compared with what it costs to administer the same benefit payments under the present complex private insurance scheme. The initial establishment costs of Medicare will be $56m in this financal year which, when added to the operating costs from 1 February 1984 of $34m, means that the gross administration costs of Medicare will be $90m in 1983-84. The savings incurred through the single public fund operation will recoup the initial establishment costs of $56m in less than two years. The economies of scale involved in having a single public fund operation must produce significant administrative savings. This fact is recognised in the platform of the Australian Democrats which states: Under the present health insurance arrangements there is considerable waste of members' funds in advertising and in duplication of staffing and computer equipment. It also states: A national health scheme must be easy to understand, simple in operation and designed to eliminate unnecessary costs, including those in administrative procedures whether in government or private organisations. The Health Insurance Commission can provide a convenient network of branch offices that will make cash payments to Medicare benefits and receive claims for cheque payment through the use of 280 offices throughout Australia. The private funds currently support a structure of about 1,000 branch offices because there are often the offices of several different funds located close together in a suburban shopping centre or metropolitan business district. This duplication of facilities in the private insurance system must make a single public fund operation less costly. Similarly, the private funds cannot claim that they will employ 2,000 extra staff and run Medicare more cheaply. In a labour intensive industry such as health insurance the cost of this number of extra staff cannot be compensated by internal cost advantages through competition. This is where in choosing the Health Insurance Commission the Government is not appointing a public monopoly, rather it is handing the administration of Medicare to an efficient, progressive organisation which has coped remarkably well with the changes of different situations thrust upon it over the past ten years. In 1975 the private health funds were all given the opportunity to act as agents for Medibank. No major fund took up the offer and the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia now cites as a major reason for this refusal the fact that it believed the Medibank claims assessing system would be hastily installed and result in problems and confusion. It believed that if it accepted the agency offer and acted as the public contact point it would be blamed for any problems that occurred. As a result of its refusal to run Medibank the Health Insurance Commission was entrusted with the task of achieving the 1 July 1975 deadline without any major public inconvenience. It is this ability to take on a massive task of implementing a universal health program such as Medibank within a tight timetable-a task the private funds then believed was impossible- which gives us the confidence in Medibank Private's ability, the Health Insurance Commission's ability, to implement the Medicare program. Having successfully administered a public fund for more than three years, the Health Insurance Commission had its functions reduced to that of another private fund by the November 1978 health scheme changes. The removal of the public function left it with 3,000 surplus staff and a computer system which was not appropriate to its future needs. Within 14 months Medibank Private had developed an on-line claims processing system that is at least equal to the best in Australia. The efficiency of its processing system has enabled Medibank Private to remain competitive despite its higher salary rates and additional superannuation liability for all employees. From the 1978 changes Medibank Private was left to cope with the gradual rundown of surplus staff members as its staff levels had been an unnecessarily heavy cost. Its management expenses have fallen steadily from 15.5 per cent of contribution income in 1980-81 to 11. 3 per cent in 1981-82 to 10.1 per cent in the last financial year. There has been some criticism of Medibank Private operations in the smaller states. Australia-wide it has been able to obtain 23 per cent of the already crowded private insurance market, but in some States its smaller market share has affected its relative efficiency. However, the efficiency of the organisation is illustrated by the situation in Victoria, where Medibank Private has a comparable market share to its major competitor, HBA. In that State Medibank Private had a management expenses ratio of 11.6 per cent in 1981-82 compared with 12.5 per cent for HBA. Denials of comparability by HBA are nonsense. The Auditor-General's scrutiny of Medibank Private to ensure a fair proportion of administrative costs is far more stringent than for any private health fund. It cannot be denied that the discipline of the market-place has been a major factor in achieving this outstanding management record. It is one of the important reasons why we want to continue having the Health Insurance Commission operate Medibank Private as well as the Medicare function. Competition in the private insurance market will keep the Health Insurance Commission a lean and efficient organisation and these qualities will also extend to its Medicare operation, allowing it to run a universal fund at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. We do not wish Medibank Private to obtain a monopoly position in the private insurance market as this would sacrifice many of the cost advantages I have just outlined. For this reason we have been willing to place limitations on Medibank Private's membership so that its share of the private insurance market is restricted. The window into the private insurance market-place that Medibank Private will provide is also essential to our policy of reduced controls over the private funds' operations. We believe that private insurance can be much more effectively regulated by the use of Medibank Private as the 'honest broker' in the market. The other major argument in favour of having a single public fund operate Medicare is the timely and accurate supply of data on doctors' services in the detection of fraud and overservicing. The continuation of the present system whereby 63 different organisations supply that data means that the accumulation of doctors' profiles is dependent on the speed of the slowest fund. The Health Insurance Commission is currently the timeliest and most accurate fund in Australia, with a 99.97 per cent accuracy level in the statistical data it supplies to the Health Department for fraud and overservicing purposes. While the overall responsibility for investigating fraud and overservicing will remain with the Health Department it is pertinent to note that the Health Insurance Commission has been among the most active of the private funds in pursuing suspected cases of fraud. In fact, the amendments to the Health Insurance Act contained in clause 58 of this Bill which make bribery by a proprietor of a private hospital an offence largely came about through the efforts of Medibank Private in pursuing what it correctly considered to be a rip-off of contributors ' funds, but which the inadequacy of the current laws prevented it taking to court. The final factor in favour of having the HIC administer Medicare was that, as I outlined earlier, the Government would find it impossible to entrust such an important program to the private funds, considering their opposition to Labor's health policies throughout the past decade. While there would be a relationship of trust if the Health Department were to operate Medicare, it would have neither the experience to administer such a large benefit payments organisation nor the administrative efficiency that accrued to the HIC through its five years of operation in the private market. In seeking consensus with the private funds on the introduction of the Medicare program the Government has offered a range of concessions. There are three main reasons for the concessions announced: Firstly, to guarantee a continuing substantial role for the private funds and ensure Medibank private could not gain unfair commercial advantage through the Health Insurance Commission's operation of Medicare; secondly, to minimise the possibility of redundancies caused by Medicare's introduction; and thirdly, because Medicare will provide basic cover to all Australians there is no longer a need for the Government to regulate the funds' operations so closely. Clause 73 of the Bill gives the Minister a general power of direction over the Health Insurance Commission. All directions made by the Minister must be set out in the annual report which is subsequently tabled in the Parliament. Once the Parliament has agreed to this power of direction the Minister for Health will be making three directions in relation to Medibank Private's operations. Firstly, Medibank Private membership will be limited in each State and on each table to the numbers as at 30 June 1983. Secondly, Medibank Private operations will be limited to their present 195 offices. The greater overall work volumes following Medicare's introduction may mean some transfers to larger premises at an equivalent site. However, Medibank Private will not be able to operate from the 86 new Medicare offices which will be opened before 1 February 1984. Thirdly, to ensure that the Health Insurance Commission's operation of Medicare and Medibank Private does not give Medibank Private an unfair advantage in lower administrative costs that could be passed on in lower contribution rates, the Minister will be directing that the management component of all their contribution rates must reflect average industry costs. These directions under section 8J of the Health Insurance Act will apply up to 30 June 1986, at which time these policies will be reviewed. Clause 101 of the Bill creates a new section 73BAB in the National Health Act which means that funds will operate under a minimum reserve policy rather than the current maximum reserve policy. The change to minimum reserves means that the Government's concern is to ensure the financial viability of each fund, but we will not be controlling the contribution rates to reduce the reserve levels of a profitable fund. Clause 101 also creates a new section 73BAC which allows the Minister to remove restrictions from the private funds as to the sorts of business they can carry on in addition to their health fund activities. Provided these other activities are entered into on a normal commercial basis this will allow the funds to set up their own companies and diversify into other activities such as general insurance, travel agencies, retirement villages, et cetera. Following their loss of medical insurance from 1 February this diversification potential will allow them to retain staff in new activities after 1 February. Clause 128 of the Bill allows the Minister to approve mergers between solvent funds. This will facilitate industry rationalisation in what is still a crowded private insurance market as funds will no longer have to go through the current costly and time consuming winding up procedures involving the Federal Court of Australia. Clause 119 of the Bill amends section 78 of the National Health Act. Funds will no longer require the approval of the Minister to change their rates of contribution or benefits and conditions of operation of all tables. As I outlined earlier, because Medicare provides basic cover to all Australians the Government no longer considers it necessary to regulate the funds beyond ensuring that overall financial viability and deciding the general principles for their operation. To this end clause 78 of the National Health Act has been amended to limit the requirements for ministerial approval to the benefits and conditions on the basic table only. These concessions go much of the way to providing the deregulation the private insurance industry has sought for many years but neither Labor nor Liberal governments felt able to grant while they were responsible for providing basic health cover in our society. The concessions on restricting Medibank Private's operations clearly prove that this Government has no intention of seeking monopoly control of the private insurance industry. One of the issues raised during the discussions with the private funds was the question of employment of fund staff. This question was also raised during the discussions I had with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. All along the Government has made it clear that employment preference would be extended to employees of the private health funds who sought employment with Medicare and who were affected by the introduction of the new program. The transfer of staff from the private health funds to Medicare will be handled with efficiency and compassion. As the Minister for Health has stated, the claims that have been made that at least 5,000 people will lose their jobs because of Medicare are wildly exaggerated and based on inflated figures of the size of the private health insurance industry. The private health insurance industry has traditionally had a high turnover rate of employees and, when this is taken into consideration along with the diversification opportunities the Government will offer the private funds, the employment prospects of fund staff will be maximised. As well negotiations are proceeding with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Public Service Board to further expand the employment prospects of affected private fund staff. Finally, it is with regret that we note the continuing negative attitude of the Opposition to Medicare. The shadow spokesman for health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), continues to regard medical and hospital services as market commodities rather than basic rights for all Australians. He has made it quite clear that he would abandon Medicare immediately on attaining Government. On 22 July this year he told a health symposium at Sydney University 'The diffidence that in 1976 prevented us'-that is the Liberals-'from moving swiftly away from the earlier model would not be repeated'. Perhaps fortunately, his leader does not share that view. When pressed on the matter at the National Press Club on 7 July 1983 he could only provide the following gnomic utterance ' We will have to make our assessment of the extent to which Medicare has permeated the Australian community at a later date'. We are confident that through the full implementation of Medicare we will achieve such permeation through the Australian community such that Medicare will remain the basic form of health cover until the end of the century. While the Federal Opposition remains negative we acknowledge that the Australian Democrats have voiced some disquiet on particular features of Medicare. Their leader even speculated recently that the Government would not really be that sorry to see Medicare stopped because this would assist the Government to keep the Budget deficit down. I would point out first of all that a $25m saving this year in abandoning Medicare would have only a very marginal impact on a Budget deficit of $8,361,000,000. But more importantly, Medicare is vital to the Government not only as a social policy on its own merits for providing simple, fair and affordable health cover to all Australians but also as a key element in the social wage policy and a key element in guaranteeing wage moderation over the coming year. The union movement is supportive of Medicare because the greatest benefit of the scheme will go to low and middle income earners who make up the majority of its members. Average family earnings are just over $400 a week and at this level the family would pay only $4 a week in the health levy. This is a saving of $10.50 a week when compared with the estimated cost of private insurance by early 1984 and the saving will represent extra cash in the weekly pay packet of wage and salary earners. Medicare is also estimated to reduce the consumer price index by 2.6 per cent over the first two quarters of 1984. Thus Medicare plays a major role in the anti-inflation strategy of the Government. For all these reasons Medicare is a vital policy for the Hawke Labor Government and we are not prepared to accept fundamental changes to that legislation. The Government will be judged on the success or otherwise of Medicare. It must, therefore, have the final say on the basic machinery to implement the scheme. No government could abdicate that responsibility. Medicare is a policy on which the Government kept every commitment made during the election campaign. My only concern with the minders in the Senate is to ensure that someone keeps them honest to their own election undertakings. We have a clear mandate from the people to enact the Medicare program in all its fundamentals. The Medicare program and its costings were made freely available for public scrutiny and debate over 12 months prior to the election. This is in sharp contrast to the five schemes of the previous Government all of which were hatched in secrecy and none of which were presented to the electorate. So let there be no talk from the Opposition benches of not having mandates. Their health schemes had to be hidden away at election times not promoted as a major policy initiative as Medicare was in February and March of this year. As for the claim that Medicare may have a mandate but not its administration through a single public fund such as the Health Insurance Commission, let me refresh some memories on this point. First of all, the Medicare policy document which has been freely available since February 1982 has as its first statement following the introduction 'all Australians will be guaranteed automatic entitlement under a single public insurance fund'. Then again earlier this year we issued a booklet entitled Labor's Health Plan-Summary of Arguments for use during the election campaign. The book was widely circulated and freely given to journalists and the public with queries about Medicare. In a section comparing the Liberal health scheme with the Labor health plan it was stated, 'Having some 80 health funds is administratively inefficient and costly'. It then went on to state, 'Having a single public fund for all medical insurance is cost efficient- advantageous of scale, reduced administrative and advertising costs'. It seems that only a few members of parliament are unaware of this commitment. The members of the funds themselves were under no illusions as was pointed out by John Short in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 May 1983 when he wrote: 'the funds have known for the past three years that the ALP is committed to having its Medicare scheme run by one public health fund, namely, Medibank. And I would invite the Senate's attention to the Minister for Health's speech to the Australian Hospitals Association in Adelaide late last year entitled ' Consistency and Consensus in Labor's Health Policy', later reprinted in the Australian Health Review. During the Minister's speech he stated: While we will not found our system on the private health agencies we recognise that they have a continuing, if subordinate, role to play. There will be substantial opportunities for the private funds to supplement the public fund with forms of hospital cover and to provide a wide range of ancillary covers. In this legislation we are honouring precisely that commitment. Further, during the election campaign the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia produced a spurious costing document on Medicare and circulated it widely among the Press and the then Government. This was the basis for many stories about Medicare having a 2 or 3 per cent levy, but let me just cite one in particular. The Age in an article of 26 February 1983 entitled ' Medicare Levy would Double Say Funds' quoted the VHIAA's Executive Director as stating 'medicares deficits would total $1,800m after three years of operation' and 'in its first full year of operation medicare would face a deficit of $253m and by 1987-88 the annual deficit would rise to $1,805m'. However, following the election they had to concede that these figures were grossly inaccurate and thus they issued a revised draft of the costing document. The magnitude of their deliberate or negligent errors in their election propaganda was such that: the three year Medicare deficit became $496m instead of $1,800m; the first full year cost became $162m instead of $253m at election time, and the 1987-88 deficit became $614m instead of $1,805m at election time. Whatever the reason for these errors, the damage was done before the post- election corrections were issued. I ask the Senate to consider the competence and integrity of an organisation that put forward such figures during the campaign-and these are the people the Opposition would ask the Government to entrust the running of Medicare. Having witnessed the strident and at times malicious campaign waged by the private funds against Medicare I am sure that very few electors went to the polls on 5 March believing that the Labor Party could or would entrust Medicare's operations to the private funds. Only by ignoring all of these statements and all of these activities is it possible to deny that the ALP has a mandate to operate Medicare through a single public fund . For too long confusion, continual change and complexity have been the hallmarks of Australia's health insurance system. The Government's Medicare policy which this legislation enacts, reverses the confusion, changes and complexities of the past. No longer will health insurance be a costly necessity for Australian families. It will, Mr President, be their right. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.32) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- By this Bill, and another that I shall introduce shortly, it is proposed to impose a Medicare levy of one per cent of the taxable income, as determined for income tax purposes, of people residing in Australia. The Bills are a finance- raising complement to other measures designed to implement the Government's universal Medicare scheme. Other basic features of the scheme are contained in legislation that has been introduced by the Minister for Social Security. Introduction of the levy is timed to coincide with the coming into operation of the main Medicare legislation on 1 February 1984. Because the Medicare arrangements will apply for only five months of 1983-84, the rate of levy to be applied to 1983-84 taxable incomes is set at five-twelfths, or 0.416 per cent, of the annual rate of one per cent. At the upper end of the income scale, the maximum amount of levy payable by a taxpayer or by a married couple will be $291.20 for 1983-84 and $700 for a full year. For low income taxpayers there are relieving provisions which have the effect that a person whose taxable income is less than $6,699 will not be liable for the levy. There are further relieving provisions in respect of people responsible for maintaining dependants. These will apply to both married couples and sole parents. I mention that for this purpose and in the application of other provisions of the Bill relating to families the Bill will be operative in the same way for both legally married and de facto married couples. In these cases the levy will not be payable where the person's taxable income together with, where the person has a spouse, the taxable income of his or her spouse, is not more than $11,141, and this threshold is to be further increased by $1,100 for each dependent child or student maintained by the taxpayer or his or her spouse. Thus, for example, a married couple with two dependent children will not pay any levy unless the aggregate of the couple's taxable incomes is more than $ 13,341. Provision is also being made to give relief from the levy to certain classes of persons, including veterans and war widows. The broad principle is that a veteran or war widow who is personally entitled under repatriation arrangements to full free medical treatment for all medical conditions, whether or not war-caused, and who has no dependants or who has dependants who are also entitled to such medical benefits, will be completely free from payment of levy. If the repatriation beneficiary is entitled to full cover personally but has a spouse or one or more dependent children not fully covered by a repatriation scheme, relief will be given for one-half of the levy that would otherwise be payable. Defence Force personnel and those people who hold pensioner health benefits cards, health benefits cards or health care cards on a non-income tested basis will be eligible for relief from the levy on the same terms as proposed for repatriation beneficiaries. For these purposes the spouse of a veteran or a child under 16 will be treated as a dependant if the veteran contributes in any way to their maintenance. A child who is aged 16 or more but less than 25 and who is a full time student will be treated as a dependant if his or her separate net income is not above $1,785. A fundamental objective of the legislation is to integrate collection of the levy with the collection of income tax. This has distinct administrative advantages and is the most economical and sensible course to follow. It does, however, require a number of provisions of a technical kind. Much of what is contained in the Bills is concerned with these technicalities and explanations of the various provisions are contained in an explanatory memorandum which I have arranged for honourable senators to receive. Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill I mention in particular that PAYE deductions from salaries and wages will be increased from 1 February 1984 to take account of the levy. The legislation also provides for a separate identification in assessments of the amount of a taxpayer's liability for Medicare levy, as distinct from income tax liability. The Bill will also amend the tax sharing legislation to make it clear that collections of levy are not to form part of the revenue in which the states and local government share, given that the levy is being introduced to offset Commonwealth expenditure on Medicare. The various terms of the Bill, including technical clauses that provide for levy to be payable on certain income derived by trustees and for people living in the external territories to be exempt, are, as I have already indicated, explained in a memorandum that will be made available to honourable senators. In these circumstances, I think I need say no more at this stage about particular features of the Bill. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bill be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to enact Commonwealth legislation to provide for the Commonwealth to undertake domestic meat inspection in New South Wales and any other State which subsequently refers the power of inspection of meat to the Commonwealth. Following negotiations between the Commonwealth and New South Wales for the transfer of the New South Wales domestic meat inspection service to the Commonwealth, thus providing for the Commonwealth to undertake all meat inspection in that State, the New South Wales Parliament passed legislation entitled the Commonwealth Powers (Meat Inspection) Act, 1983 which came into effect on 1 July 1983. It provided that the matter of the inspection of meat that is intended for human consumption or for use as animal food, to the extent to which it is not otherwise included in the legislative powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, is referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth. This Bill will apply to New South Wales and to such other States as may make the same reference of power to the Commonwealth. The Bill will also be proclaimed to apply to a Territory where this is appropriate. Thus the new legislation will provide a mechanism whereby a single, national meat inspection service operating under one Commonwealth law can be achieved with the agreement of the Governments concerned. Also on 1 July 1983 an arrangement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales came into effect which provided that the meat inspection function carried out by State officers should be carried out by the Commonwealth. From that date the State officers concerned became Commonwealth officers under the Public Service Act 1922. This arrangement was entered into by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964. Since 1964 when that Act came into effect the dual system of meat inspection in Australia whereby the Commonwealth is responsible for inspection of product destined for export and the States are responsible for inspection of product intended for domestic consumption has been recognised by successive Commonwealth Governments as having serious disadvantages. It hinders the introduction of common standards, results in some duplication of inspection services, creates anomalies in charging levels where export meat is diverted to the local market and has led to industrial disputation due to demarcation problems. Under the 1964 Act various arrangements were entered into with South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania whereby Commonwealth meat inspectors undertook some inspection of meat intended for domestic consumption on behalf of the States concerned. These arrangements are not as all embracing as the arrangement recently entered into between the Commonwealth and New South Wales as some local government authorities and State public health authorities continue to provide inspection services to local standards at some non-export premises in those States. The existing arrangements with other States will continue until such time as each refers its powers of domestic meat inspection to the Commonwealth. It should be noted that following the transfer of the domestic meat inspection function in New South Wales to the Commonwealth on 1 July 1983 the New South Wales Meat Industry Authority remains responsible for licensing of and construction and facilities standards in non-export abattoirs, slaughter-houses, meat processing plants and knackeries and pet food processing plants in that State. Because New South Wales retains the function of licensing slaughtering and processing premises the Bill provides that State laws which are capable of operating concurrently with the new Act can co-exist with and have effect alongside the Commonwealth law. This Government is convinced that a single national meat inspection service is necessary for meat inspection in Australia to be carried out in an efficient and cost effective manner. In this connection, I am pleased to be able to report that recently the Premier of Victoria wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) proposing that a working party consisting of Commonwealth and Victoria officials should be formed to advise both governments on arrangements necessary for the establishment of a single meat inspection service. Meat inspection services on a national basis will only be delivered in the most efficient manner when standards for slaughtering and processing which apply to export and domestic production and in various States and Territories are, so far as is possible, common standards. An important element of the integrated national inspection service proposal is commonality of standards. The Government recognises that the existing standards which apply in slaughtering and non- slaughtering establishments in the States and Territories vary quite considerably. This Bill will allow the progressive introduction of common standards in States and Territories to which the Act is applied when the States and Territories agree to such action. In New South Wales and South Australia all meat inspectors engaged in inspection of product for the domestic market are now officers of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry and as at 1 July 1983, about 80 per cent of full time meat inspectors in Australia were employed by the Commonwealth . Management objectives such as uniformity of conditions of employment of meat inspectors in Australia, avoidance of demarcation disputes, common training and the improved flexibility and mobility of staff are increasingly being achieved. This Bill will enable other objectives to be achieved. This Bill follows the Export Control Act 1982 and where possible the form and substance of the Bill, and particularly of parts IV, V and VI, is in the same or very similar terms to the equivalent provisions in that Act. The Bill provides that an offence will have been committed if in the course of trade or commerce meat, which is not fit for human or animal consumption but which is intended to be used as human or animal food respectively, is transported out of or into a State or Territory to which the legislation applies . Provisions in the relevant New South Wales Act which will remain in force after this Bill comes into effect require that meat brought into that State must be taken from the carcase of an animal slaughtered at premises outside the State which have been approved by the New South Wales Meat Industry Authority. Similar provision exists in other State legislation. In order to complement such provisions which would continue to apply the Bill will provide that meat of certain kinds brought into a State or Territory to which the Act extends must be taken to prescribed premises so that it may be inspected by an authorised officer. While inspection powers under the Bill are to be exercised by officers of the Department of Primary Industry the Bill also provides for the Secretary to that Department to appoint other persons such as officers of other Commonwealth Departments or statutory authorities or State or Territory Departments or statutory authorities to carry out the functions of authorised officers. Powers are included in the Bill, similar to those included in the Export Control Act 1982, which are necessary to facilitate enforcement of the conditions and restrictions which will be imposed. These include powers of entry and search, power to stop and detain any ship, vehicle or aircraft, and to seize meat or another matter or thing in respect of which an offence against the Act is reasonably believed to have been committed. As with the Export Control Act 1982 these powers are accompanied by safeguards to prevent abuse. Entry into premises other than abattoirs, knackeries, meat processing plants or animal food processing plants can only take place with the consent of the occupier of the premises or in pursuance of a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace who must be convinced of the need for entry. A time limit is to be placed on the currency of warrants. Powers of search of vehicles, ships or aircraft cannot take place unless the authorised officers produce identity cards issued to them under the Act. Similarly persons are not required to assist an authorised officer in the performance of his or her duties upon request unless such a card is produced. A limit on the time a seized matter or thing can be held unless proceedings are instituted is imposed. It will be an offence to apply a false trade description to meat that has been inspected under the Act or to interfere with or forge official marks under the Act. Such a provision will protect the application of objective carcase classifications to meat consumed in Australia in the same way that the Export Control Act 1982 applies to meat for export. Detailed effect will be given to the provisions of the Bill by means of regulations and orders made under the regulations which will give scope for the variations which are required between particular States and Territories and for changing requirements and conditions. The penalties which the Bill provides for the commission of offences are, in respect of provisions in the same terms as provisions in the Export Control Act 1982, in the main the same as in that Act and the penalties in relation to other provisions are the same as those which apply in New South Wales under similar provisions of the State law which will be superseded by the new Commonwealth Act. After many years of discussion at all levels of industry and government this Bill represents a major step towards the establishment of a unified Australia-wide inspection system and common product standards for meat. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.34) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a special contribution by Australia of $A67.84m towards the Sixth Replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association or IDA as it is commonly called. IDA, established in 1960, is an affiliate of the World Bank, and assists its poorest member countries by providing long-term highly concessionary credits for sound development projects, utilising grant funds provided by donor countries. IDA is the largest and, in our view, the most effective development assistance institution in the world. It is an efficient institution capable of undertaking generally large scale development projects in a technically proficient way while at the same time ensuring that benefits flow either directly or indirectly to the poorest members of society. The projects which IDA finances are subject to the same rigorous standards of appraisal that the World Bank applies to its ordinary lending operations on near commercial terms. They are systematically monitored and evaluated. A recent overall survey of IDA's experience concludes that IDA lending has been effective in promoting development-not only through the high economic rates of return achieved averaging 18 per cent, but also through its impact on development policies and through its success in developing institutions. This effectiveness was confirmed in a critical study done by the United States Treasury. IDA has shown a great capacity to adapt to changing aid needs; in particular by gradually shifting its lending to the poorest countries and to poor people within these countries. It has also been remarkably successful in attracting increased financial support-at least until very recently. Finally, an enlarged membership, which now includes China, places increasingly heavy pressure in IDA' s development assistance. IDA's projects cover a wide range of activities, but it is notable that roughly one third are directed to the promotion of agricultural and rural development. Other priority sectors include energy, transport and communications and overall there is a balance between traditional infrastructure projects, such as roads and dams, and newer style projects designed to benefit poorer groups more directly. Because of the emphasis on the poorest countries, IDA credits are increasingly concentrated on countries outside Australia's immediate region. They serve to complement our own, obviously limited, aid efforts outside our region and in certain instances can be regarded as a substitute for a larger bilateral aid response. I mention here India, which is a major recipient of IDA credits and which is a country whose enormous needs for development assistance far exceed our capacity. I also mention sub-Saharan Africa, the development assistance needs of which are similarly very great, but where it is difficult, particularly for a country like Australia, to ensure that such assistance makes a real contribution. IDA is currently running up against serious funding difficulties as a result of the decision by the United States Administration to stretch its total contribution to the Sixth Replenishment over four years instead of three. One result, in the absence of offsetting measures of the kind covered by this Bill, is a greatly reduced ability by IDA to enter into project commitments from July 1983 onwards-at a time when IDA's main recipients are still suffering from the adverse effects on their economies of the prolonged world recession and the increasingly difficult environment confronting poorer countries in borrowing on international capital markets. IDA's funding problems were recognised by the Association's donors in 1982. Consistent with Australia's long standing attitude of strong support for IDA and in company with virtually all other donors, the previous government decided to make a special, additional contribution to IDA equal to one third of its original pledge to the Sixth 3-year Replenishment. This decision was announced at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank's Governors in September 1982. Some twenty donors, including Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand made similar decisions. The present Government wishes to honour this international commitment in the appropriate way, which is the purpose of this Bill. Our contribution to IDA normally takes the form of promissory notes which are then encashed over several years as the Association incurs project expenditures. This legislation will allow Australia to lodge an unqualified instrument of contribution to the Association, which assures the Association that Australia's commitments will be honoured and that the funds required for the encashment are appropriated out of Consolidated Revenue. Encashments relating to this special contribution are not expected to be significant in the current financial year, and allowance has been made in the aid budget. I would add that this special contribution is very much a 'one-off' response to exceptional needs. We envisage that the Seventh Replenishment of IDA will start in July 1984 and we are heartened by the recent decision of the United States Administration to pass a critical supplementary appropriation for the Sixth Replenishment. The occasion of this year's OECD Ministerial Council Meeting, in May, was used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to express Australia's strong concern at the funding problems of IDA. As honourable senators will know, Australia has always been a strong supporter of IDA. There has been general agreement here that IDA is a highly effective channel for the disbursement of development assistance to the poorest countries throughout the world. This Bill provides an opportunity for honourable senators once again to demonstrate their bi-partisan support for IDA and our willingness to recognise, through our support of this institution, the development assistance needs of the poorest developing countries. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to enable Australia to consent to an increase in its 'quota' in the International Monetary Fund, and to make the consequent payment. A country's quota in the IMF determines, as well as its financial subscription to the Fund, its voting power in the Fund, its rights to draw from the Fund and its share in any allocations of special drawing rights SDRS, by the Fund. From time to time the Fund reviews the levels of quotas in the light of developments in the world economy, the International Monetary system and changes in the relative economic position of Fund members. In March this year, in the context of the eighth general review of quotas, the Fund's board of governors approved a resolution proposing a 47.5 per cent increase in the aggregate level of Fund quotas to SDR90 billion. The resolution also proposed that 60 per cent of the overall quota increase be distributed among members in proportion to their relative economic positions in the world and 40 per cent in proportion to their existing quota shares. For this purpose, relative economic positions are measured by a set of formulae which take into account GDP, the level and variability of current external payments and receipts and the level of international reserves. One consequence of this method of distribution is that percentage increases in quotas proposed for individual members vary considerably around the aggregate quota increase of 47.5 per cent. The quota increase will come into effect when members accounting for at least 70 per cent of existing quotas have consented to their proposed increases. Individual member countries wishing to consent to their proposed quota increases are required to do so by 30 November 1983, and assuming the 70 per cent threshold has been reached by then, to pay for the increase in full by 31 December 1983. As at 2 September 1983, 34 members holding 15.25 per cent of total fund quotas had consented to their proposed increases. The increase in Australia's quota proposed under the review is from SDR1185 million to SADR1619. 2 million, an increase of 36.6 per cent. Section 4 of the Bill approves consent to this increase. Australia's increase of 36.6 per cent is smaller than the average increase of 47.5 per cent. As a result, our share in total quotas will decline from 1.94 per cent to 1.80 per cent. This decline stems from the procedures adopted for distributing the overall quota increase. As I have mentioned, the procedures that have been adopted by the Board of Governors are designed to realign members' quota shares so that they more accurately reflect their relative economic positions. Since, in these terms, Australia's present quota share somewhat overstates our relative economic position in the world, we qualify for a smaller quota increase than the average. As provided for in the IMF articles of agreement and the eighth quota review resolution approved by the Board of Governors, 75 per cent of the additional quota subscription will be paid in Australian dollars and the remainder in SDRS and foreign currency. Section 5 of the Bill allows for part of the quota subscription to be paid in the form of a non-negotiable, non-interest bearing security as provided in section 7 of the principal Act. The Australian dollar component of the increase is to be paid in this way. The foreign currency and SDRS required to pay the balance of the increase will be purchased from the Reserve Bank; section 6 of the Bill approves an appropriation for the purpose of acquiring foreign currency and the SDRS will be purchased under the standing appropriation of section 5A (6 ) of the principal Act. The purchase of SDRS and foreign currency from the Reserve Bank is a financing transaction and as such has no effect on budget outlays or on the Budget Deficit. The issue of the non-negotiable, non-interest bearing security has no effect on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is a promise to pay the fund Australian dollars in the event that the fund needs more of our currency than it presently holds. In that event, which is unlikely, there would be a call on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but again, no effect on Budget outlays or the deficit. The timing of the eighth general review of quotas was advanced considerably in the light of concerns about the stability of the international financial system. In supporting the quota resolution in March this year and by consenting to Australia's quota increase now, Australia will help augment the fund's financial resources. These resources have been depleted by a high level of drawings from the fund by its member countries, particularly over the past year or so. The increase in quotas, the Fund's principal source of resources, will enable the Fund to continue to provide temporary balance of payments assistance to members facing serious debt and external payments problems and to promote a stable international monetary system. Such stability is, of course, in Australia's interests. By supporting the quota increase, we will also increase our drawing rights and our entitlement to any allocation of SDRS, as well as protect our voting power in the fund. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to seek parliamentary approval for Australia to take up its entitlement to subscribe to additional shares in the capital stock of the Asian Development Bank. Honourable senators will be aware that the Asian Development Bank is a regional development finance institution. It was established in 1966, with its headquarters in Manila, for the purpose of lending funds, promoting investment and providing technical assistance to developing member countries to foster economic growth and co-operation in the Asian and Pacific regions. Essentially the bank harnesses the financial strength and technical expertise of its developed member countries for the benefit of developing member countries. Capital subscribers provide a pool of funds for lending and a basis for the bank to borrow further funds in world financial markets in larger amounts and on better terms than are available to developing countries. In addition to its ordinary lending operations, the bank provides loans on highly concessional terms to poorer developing member countries. These are funded from direct contributions by developed member countries to the Asian development fund within the bank. To the end of December 1982, the bank had lent about $US11.5 billion to its developing member countries for projects covering all the major sectors of economic development from major infrastructure developments in the transport, communications, industry and energy sectors to projects in agriculture, education, water supply and urban development. In 1982, the bank approved loans totalling $US1,731 million, of which $US546 million were on highly concessional terms to poorer developing member countries. Australia's contributions to the Asian Development Bank as at 31 December 1982 comprised: Paid-in capital totalling $US107 million; and contributions to the Asian development fund totalling $US151 million. In addition, as at 31 December 1982 Australia had a contingent liability to the bank in the form of callable capital of $US444 million. The bank has never called on such capital and conducts its operations in such a way as to ensure that that should not become necessary. The callable capital does, however, underpin the bank's borrowing operations. Following an examination of the adequacy of the bank's capital base for its operations during the 1980s, the governors of the Asian Development Bank approved, in April 1983, a resolution increasing the authorised capital stock of the bank by 105 per cent, equal in value to approximately $US9 billion. This should enable the bank to increase the level of its lending to developing member countries in the region. Under the terms of that resolution, 5 per cent of the increase is to be in the form of paid-in shares. The remaining 95 per cent is in the form of callable capital. Australia voted in favour of the resolution authorising the capital increase. ( The text of the resolution, including the number of shares to which each member is entitled to subscribe, is attached to the explanatory memorandum to this legislation). Members, including Australia, are entitled, but not obligated, to subscribe to this authorised increase. Australia's entitlement under the resolution is to an additional 52,433 shares, comprising 2,622 paid-in shares and 49,811 callable shares. At current exchange rates, this represents $A721 million, of which the paid-in element amounts to some $A36 million. It is envisaged that 40 per cent of the paid-in element would be paid in cash in 5 equal instalments of about $A2.9 million a year from 1983-84 and that the remaining 60 per cent would be in the form of five promissory notes in equal amounts to be encashed over the years 1988 to 1992. The Bill is similar in form to the Asian Development Bank (Additional Subscription) Act 1977 which provided for Australia's last capital injection to the Asian Development Bank. Essentially the Bill empowers the Treasurer to enter into an agreement with the Asian Development Bank for the purchase by Australia of its entitlement of additional paid-in and callable shares and to issue promissory notes to the bank in payment. The Bill also appropriates the funds necessary to make payments under such agreement. As honourable senators are aware, Australia has been an active supporter of the Asian Development Bank. We have regarded it as an effective and efficient vehicle for regional co-operation and development. Honourable senators will also be aware that this Government attaches particular priority to the needs of developing countries within our region. Accordingly, we believe it to be in Australia's interest to continue this policy of support for the Asian Development Bank by taking up, in full, the increase in the capital subscription to which it is entitled. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —For the convenience of the Senate may I suggest that we deal with the Medicare Levy Bill, the States ( Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Income Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill in a cognate fashion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.39) —The Senate is considering four Bills, one of which, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, puts in place many of the main features of the Government's Medicare program. The other three Bills , which are I believe Budget Bills, are also necessary for the implementation of that program in full. The Opposition is opposed as a matter of principle to the nationalisation of health insurance and to the extra tax impost contained in the legislation before us. Because we oppose those measures in principle we will vote against them. Let me make it clear: We will vote against the Health Legislation Amendment Bill; we do not intend to vote against Budget Bills. At the same time, if we are unsuccessful at the second reading stage, we will propose some amendments in Committee to correct some defects in the Bills, defects which do pose some particular problems. In my contribution I wish to cover certain areas only. First, I want to state what our objections are to the principles of a centralised state monopoly for health insurance. Secondly, I want to identify some destructive effects which these Bills will have upon individuals. Thirdly, I want to clarify and emphasise that these Bills are not related to better health in Australia and to state where some health problems lay. The Opposition, in approaching this debate in this chamber, works on the premise that we are neither narks nor are we mindless opponents. Furthermore, we are numerate; we can count. We are aware of the public pronouncements by various people who will contribute to the debate. Yet we must, as a responsible Opposition, test, probe and lay bare the details of measures such as this. I want to go through our objections to the principles of a centralised state monopoly. There are many of these objections. It might be helpful to us all if we acknowledge that my colleague, Mr Carlton, in a marathon speech in another place, laid out his objections to this legislation. I have no wish to emulate his 65 minute speech. I do not imagine other senators want to emulate the 65 minute speech given by Dr Blewett. They both set out, I might say, at considerable length- Senator Haines —We are in total unanimity with you on that. Senator PETER BAUME —We have total unanimity on that. They set out in great detail many of the arguments. I have no desire to see a filibuster; I see no benefit from a filibuster. But points need to be made if we are to use the review process of the Senate properly. The proposals before us provide for several things. First, they provide for the nationalisation of the health insurance industry. It is worth reminding the Senate that this has been the stated aim of the Australian Labor Party for more than a decade. I remind honourable senators that, in September 1972, Mr Hayden argued as follows: The Labor Party is a Socialist Party and its aim as far as medical care is concerned is the establishment of a public enterprise. His then leader, Mr Whitlam, put it more precisely a couple of months earlier, in July 1972, when he said: The major act of nationalisation in the traditional sense to be undertaken by a Labor government in the next term will be through the establishment of a single health fund administered by a health insurance commission. That is fair enough. That is a clear statement of intent which has been persistently held over a decade. These Bills now provide for the implementation of that plan for the provision of a single health fund and for the provision of the administration of health insurance through a single health insurance commission. Our opposition to this act of nationalisation is opposition on a point of principle. Our spokesman on health matters between 1973 and 1975 made that quite clear. His statements then emphasised, not once, but again and again, the principle of opposition to nationalisation of health insurance. For example, on 5 March 1975, our then spokesman on health matters said: Our principle has not altered-our position will not alter. The Bill before us is a naked assault by the Minister for Social Security-- let me be quite clear that it is Mr Hayden in the previous Government about whom he is talking- on the administration and autonomy of private health funds of Australia. It is for that reason that we vigorously oppose it and will continue to oppose it in another place. That statement set out our objection to the nationalisation of health insurance. It is a difference which separates us philosophically as parties, it is an ideological difference which separates us and it is a point on which we disagree with the Australian Labor Party in principle in terms of our world views and in terms of our views of society. On that basis we will oppose what we see as the nationalisation of health insurance. There is no need to destroy the health funds. There is no advantage to society from destroying the health funds. Having looked at the arguments put up by the Government now and the Government when it was in opposition and the previous Labor Government as to the advantages of a single health fund for Australia, we believe those advantages either are nonexistent or they are illusory. The act of nationalisation, when it takes place, will create a single state monopoly where none exists now. We believe, we anticipate and we fear that that monopoly will be as unwieldy, as arrogant, as uncaring and as inflexible as all monopolies are . That is a belief which we hold. It underpins the reason that we will vote against the principle behind this legislation. I dislike monopolies of capital; I dislike monopolies of labour; and I dislike monopolies of government as much or more. I do not believe monopolies are good for society. I do not believe that the creation of a health insurance monopoly will serve society well and neither do my colleagues who make up the Opposition. It is therefore our duty in speaking for a very considerable proportion of the constituency of Australia to make that opposition known and to make it known that we will translate our opposition to the legislation in our vote on the second reading of the Bills. There is no evidence that the creation of a single monopoly for paying for health care in any way improves health outcome. This has actually been studied. The British National health Service was established in 1947, or close enough to 1947. Social scientists actually conducted research a quarter of a century later . They looked at the outcomes which had followed the first quarter century of the operation of the National Health Service of Great Britain. For those who are keen on looking at the literature, a very important paper by a gentleman named Peter Townsend and another paper dealt with the same point. Townsend considered different socio-economic groups which demographers define as social groups 1 to 5. He looked at their health outcomes in 1947 and he looked at the differences between them in 1947. He was able to demonstrate two things 25 years later: The health status of both groups had improved but the differences in health outcome after a quarter of a century of the British National Health Service were wider than they had been at the beginning. The differences got worse during the first quarter century. The British people were arguing that outcomes would improve and they did not. All the evidence that has been put up has failed to show any narrowing of the gap in health outcomes between different groups of society. It has not shown that a state monopoly, in paying for health care, can lead to better health results. Many of my socialist friends keep preaching to me that their methods will produce better outcomes. I ask them to show me, from experience, from those nations which have accepted a single system of payment, how that has occurred. Experience has not revealed that it has. Surely that should trouble the planners . Surely they should be troubled by the difficulties which are occurring in Canada with its scheme. Surely they should be worried by the financial difficulties that the Canadian scheme has got into. They should be worried by the difficulties within the British national health service. They should be worried by the financial difficulties facing the American system, limited though it may be. If there is no evidence of better outcomes then the basic raison d' etre, the basic justification, for introducing such a system falls. I submit that only by improving outcomes, only by improving what goes on in society, can we really justify the major changes which are being put on us today. Those are not our only objections. There are other objections. First, there is to be the imposition of a significant new tax upon income, a tax which does not presently exist, a new one per cent income tax which everyone will pay after 1 January. It is expected to yield $1 billion. It starts at one per cent. Labor, in 1975 I believe, started its levy at that stage and was offering it at 1.35 per cent. I have no doubt that the levy rate, starting at one per cent, will rise higher as the costs of the scheme emerge and as the inadequacy of the funding emerges and that we can expect that this extra tax impost starting at one per cent will go higher. Not only that, but also will there be a double payment for families. That payment will be one per cent on the income of all working people. Where there are two income families there will be two payments to be made. Many people are not aware that each working person will have to pay one per cent of his or her income come 1 February. There is a third objection in addition to the nationalisation question, and that relates to the position of Queenslanders. Let everyone understand that Queenslanders will be paying a new tax for the provisions of services which they now get within Queensland at no cost at all. It will be a new tax in pursuit of socialisation and nationalisation to pay for something which at the present time they get for nothing. I am sure that my Queensland colleagues, when they contribute to this debate, will have plenty to say about that. I notice that Senator Bjelke-Petersen is to speak in this debate. I hope that she sets out what the costs will be to Queenslanders, costs that they do not have to pay today. I hope that all Queenslanders going to the election in that State in a few weeks will remember that they are faced with an Australian Labor Party impost to pay for free hospitals which they have known and enjoyed for many years. The fourth objection-and I have alluded to this already-is that we think that the Medicare tax rate is likely to rise over time. The fifth objection, apart from nationalisation, relates to the large extra cost which the levy will not cover. On current funding, if Medicare is to cost $1.7 billion in the first year and if the levy is to raise $1 billion, we think that there will be an extra $ 700m to be funded from Consolidated Revenue, in other words, to be funded from other means of taxation. The sixth objection which we have to this program is that it will lead to a net loss of jobs. How great that will be we cannot be certain but we think it will be a net loss of jobs within the health insurance industry of the order of 2,000. Not only that, but also will there be a temporary dislocation, a temporary job loss of many more than that. Let me remind honourable senators that, if this Bill becomes an Act, the Health Insurance Commission will be recruiting people progressively, from now to February, for its scheme which will begin on 1 February. It will not be able to do all its recruiting after February. The health funds, with continuing obligations up to February, may be shedding some staff now but the main shedding of staff will occur after February. Many of the people in the health insurance industry will find that, when they lose their jobs at their fund, many of the jobs in the Health Insurance Commission have already been taken up. There will be temporary dislocation which will mean difficulties in employment for many more people than the 2,000 whose jobs will go. The net loss of 2,000 will be accompanied by dislocation of many more people than that. The other significant point to be made is that pensioners will suffer because of a consumer price index fiddle associated with this situation. If health costs come out of the CPI, the CPI will be artificially depressed in 1984. This, of course , will reflect itself in lower increases in the pension, dependent as it is upon movement in the CPI. Because of the introduction of this Medicare scheme and because health costs will be removed from the CPI, pensioners can expect to lose something like 2.6 per cent effect on the CPI and there will be a consequent loss to pensioners of the amounts they could have expected to receive by way of pension rises in 1984. Senator Crowley —Are you suggesting that we keep up inflation? Senator PETER BAUME —They will get lower pensions than they would have had if the 2.6 per cent had stayed in. What I am suggesting to Senator Crowley is that she should address the question and if pensioners are to be worse off than they would have been, she may wish to consider means to ensure that they will not be worse off. It is difficult enough living on the pension, but for them to look forward to a lower pension rise than they would have had under existing circumstances is something that will concern pensioner organisations and age pensioners and pensioners will feel cheated by what is happening and by what is happening to them. So we have a number of objections to the scheme. As I say, I do not wish to rehearse the arguments advanced by Mr Carlton in the House of Representatives. The objections are both objections of principle to the idea of nationalisation of health insurance and objections to some of the details which are consequential. I wish to spend a few moments saying a little about the health of Australian society. We get little enough opportunity to do so. This debate is supposedly about health and I think I can say some things which may attract agreement from most parts of the chamber. Health outcomes are more important than are the processes for providing services. Our debates in Australia, all the passion, all the arguments that are going on, the all night sittings in the House of Representatives, were not directed to health. They were directed to a means of paying for medical services. There is all the difference in the world between methods of payment and the health outcomes which occur and I think Senator Haines, in the question she asked today in Question Time, really emphasised the differences between how one pays for things and what one gets in terms of health outcomes. It is not inappropriate to say a little about health and health outcomes in this debate. I remind honourable senators that we are going down the road of equating service provision, of paying people, with health itself. Of course that assumption is not so. Aaron Wildavsky, a very prominent American, I think known to some people in this chamber, said in one of his writings: According to the great equation, medical services equal health. He went on to say: But the great equation is wrong. I remind honourable senators for a few moments that we ended dental caries amongst most Australian children simply by fluoridating water. We did not do it by providing or paying for services in a better way. We get dental caries now only in those communities where water remains unfluoridated. Senator Colston —Brisbane. Senator PETER BAUME —In Brisbane, Senator Colston says. That is a pity. Policies directed to service provision-in other words dental services-were irrelevant in the end to the solution of the underlying problem. I mention a couple more examples. We ended poliomyelitis in this country-we got rid of it from our society-not by finding different ways of paying for services or concentrating upon inventing better iron lungs or training people but by introducing Salk and Sabin vaccines. We did not do it by providing services or paying for them. Policies which were directed towards service payment were irrelevant in the solution of the underlying health problem. Of course we have to direct our minds to the payment for services. But we must remember that it is largely irrelevant to the resolution of some of the great health problems of our society. We know where the great health problems lie in Australia. Many of them are preventable. I remind honourable senators that a Dr Knowles, an eminent American medical educator, when writing about that country-he could have been talking about Australia-said: . . . many Americans have come to look on 'sloth, gluttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy and smoking' as constitutional rights, and they've come to expect government-financed 'cures' for all the unhappy consequences. He pinpoints in that one sentence many of the problems in Australia. They are problems which will not be eased even by the most efficient method of paying for or providing medical services. It is not until we come to grips with some of the underlying issues that we can really look to a healthier society. We know the damage tobacco does; we are loth as a nation to take effective action. We know what causes much of the carnage on the roads, but we seem overly sensitive to club and industry interests when it comes to doing anything about it or to putting effective programs in place. We would welcome some more emphasis on measures to address these problems. We need more of the 'Life. Be In It', 'Quit for Life' and 'Belt up and Live' programs-programs with which we can try to prevent the need for some of the services. We want that kind of emphasis as well as programs directed to how one pays. It is important in the Medicare debate that this aspect of our concern for health not be forgotten or left out while we consider health payments, health insurance, health deductibles and schemes like that. They have not and they cannot deliver better community outcomes themselves . It is because I am concerned about these things that I thought it worth putting them into the debate. We desire to see the second reading debate come to a conclusion sometime in the not too distant future so that we can get some resolution of the matters of principle. Therefore I move: Leave out all words after 'That', insert: 'the Senate declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that the Australian system of health care delivery and financing should be based on- (a) the private professional practice of doctors and other health professionals charging a fee for service supported by a private sector insurance system, and sympathetic government assistance to the aged and the disadvantaged; and (b) public and private provision of hospital and other institutional facilities and community health care, accessible to private practitioners for the treatment of their patients, supported by a private sector insurance system, and sympathetic government assistance to the aged and the disadvantaged'. That is the same amendment as was moved in another place by my colleague Mr Carlton. Let me reiterate: We oppose these Bills because they offend us on principle. We will vote against the main Bill, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, at the second reading and will vote for the amendment I have just moved. If the Bills do proceed to the Committee stage, we will then raise again and in a reasoned way five or six small particular matters which we believe require amendment if the Bills are to operate effectively. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(6.04) —Unlike Senator Baume, I am delighted to support this Medicare legislation. I am delighted to be a part of a government that has the opportunity to reintroduce a health system that ought to have remained in place following its establishment in 1973. It is quite remarkable that, 10 years later, we have come back to re-doing what had been very well established in the first place. This reintroduction will allow for the removal of some of the bumps that the system had after its original passage. I address myself briefly to a few points raised by Senator Baume. I cannot take issue with him on a matter of principle. He clearly says that is what he believes; I leave him with his beliefs. I do take issue with him when he bends the evidence. The Health Insurance Commission is not about a single fund for health care; it is about a single fund for basic health and medical care. There is no way that the private health funds will not be able to continue. In fact, the private health funds have been encouraged to continue by quite a few of the agreements that have been reached between the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and themselves. Senator Baume claimed that having a private health insurance industry would be very useful. He said it would be an efficient, splendid thing to have in our society because it does all these wonderful things for people, and it is important to have a multiplicity of funds. Yet one of the concessions that the funds have required, and which we are pleased to allow them, is the possibility of amalgamation between smaller funds, to enable them to rationalise their industry. Senator Baume also introduced the possibility of this matter being a distraction from the question of health. I can only utterly agree with him, and remind him again that, had his Government not broken down and disbanded Medibank , we could have been pursuing health questions for the last decade instead of blowing in the wind, as we have, with five different health arrangements in between the introduction of Medibank and this reintroduction of a similar sort of system in Medicare. In fact, the community health program, also introduced under the previous Labor Government, could have been far further advanced and been addressing itself to exactly what its policy claims; that is, preventive programs and good health. Senator Baume also claimed that discussions about health insurance have nothing to do with the health of people. I ask him to ring up some of those many people who are very anxious about where they will find the money to go to the doctor. Anxiety, sir, is a sort of sickness. Further, I refer to those many people who, because they cannot afford private insurance, have delayed going to the doctor until they are much sicker than they would have been had they been able to go earlier. His Government has a lot to answer for. As well, if in fact we had not been distracted from the health debate that could have progressed over the last decade, we would have been able to develop what this Government is going to introduce-that is, an efficient and proper occupational health and safety program which directs itself very much to the prevention of illness and sickness in industry instead of fixing it up after the event. The Opposition does not have a leg to stand on. I am delighted to support the Medicare Levy Bill and I am also aware that the community is delighted at the introduction of Medicare. I quote from a couple of editorials. The Adelaide Advertiser on Wednesday, 25 May 1983, stated: Medicare, rooted in principles that must be expected from a Socialist Government, is a resurrection, modified by experience, of the original Whitlam Medibank, that social vision that was to become so maligned, mangled and finally murdered. Health insurance in Australia is a messy patchwork of computerised band-aids and a public bewilderment; Medicare at least promises simplicity. On the philosophy that the whole community should pay for health care according to means, and receive health care according to needs, every taxpayer will be levied 1 per cent of income from February 1 and everybody will be entitled to medical and basic hospital treatment paid for by Medicare, which an expanded Medibank Private will administer. On 25 July, the Australian stated: It is clear that Labor's commitment to bring in Medicare, almost as an article of faith, has sunk in. It is obvious the Government will not be swayed from its aim-and it has also been realised that a publicly administered health insurance scheme is not necessarily the first step towards socialised medicine that the more ferocious opponents once branded it. Indeed, Medicare has worthy social aims and, as it is inevitable, its smooth implementation can only be to the country's benefit. Neither the Australian nor the Advertiser is a newspaper known for its radical approach to things or for its appreciation of what is widely known in the community which in this case is that Medicare is coming, it is almost upon us and all Australians will be delighted to discover when it is implemented how it will help them. I turn now to some of the economic benefits that will flow to individuals. The first great advantage of Medicare is that it is universal. Every Australian, including the two million currently not covered, will be covered for all basic health costs. Any health insurance scheme that allows two million Australians to have no health insurance cover is, I think, a disgrace. The next important advantage to individuals is that payment for health costs under this scheme will be according to ability to pay. Currently, a family on $400 a week would be paying $14.50 a week for its basic health care. Under the Medicare system it will pay $4. Further, a family now pays $14.50 a week whether it earns $400 a week or $1,000 a week. Another considerable advantage to people is that there will be a considerable saving on health care costs. This saving can then be spent on other consumer items. For their one per cent levy on taxable income people in Australia will receive an 85 per cent reimbursement of the schedule fee and will pay a maximum amount of $10 for any one medical item. All public hospital accommodation and medical attention will be free. This will cover dental surgery, optometry, radiology, pathology, surgery, diagnosis, in-patient and out-patient services and other specialist services. However, because this Government is well aware of the problems of people on low incomes, it gives an exemption from the levy to people on lower incomes. Single people may earn up to $128.80 a week before they have to pay any levy. Couples may earn $214.25 a week. There will be a further allowance of $21.15 for each dependent child. As well, pensioner card holders and health care card holders will continue to be covered without making any contribution towards the levy. In addition, there will be no gap insurance. We need to know that the non- payment of gap insurance will advantage individuals. In 1980 the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals found that if people paid for gap insurance they would have to pay $2 on top of the 100 per cent schedule fee rebate, instead of $2 for the difference between the Medicare benefit and the schedule fee on standard GP consultations. They would have to pay a premium as well for the gap cover. The only people really advantaged by that system would be the doctors. Gap insurance also does nothing to contain overall health costs. Indeed, it is positively an inducement to creating more health care costs. If people choose to have private hospital insurance they will be able to buy it under Medicare arrangements for an estimated $5 a week. A family on $300 a week would have to pay $3 for its Medicare levy and $5 for private hospital insurance. That still means that its total health care cost a week would be $8. Even if we take into account the $4 forgone on the rebate, it would still be $2 or $3 better off than it is under the present scheme. Economic benefits will also accrue to individual doctors. For a start, if any doctor chooses to bulk bill, he loses all fear of, or occurrence of, bad debts. In previous studies administration costs in general practice have been estimated at about 15 per cent because of revenue forgone and the costs of following up bad debts. Many doctors are very happy to take the 85 per cent as a very reasonable estimate. Bulk billing also reduces overheads in terms of general administration of practices. It reduces payment delays and takes care of administrative problems so that more time can be spent in actual medical practice. Further, because it seems to be very fashionable to bash doctors, I take the opportunity to say that most medical practitioners in this country have a real concern for their patients and are not in the rip-off business. The 6 or 7 per cent who are in that business have disgraced the whole profession. Many doctors are very concerned about patients who cannot afford to pay or have trouble finding the money for health care costs. They know that bulk billing, which will advantage them, will also advantage their patients. This relieves the doctor of that concern. There are other economic benefits that are more part of a macroeconomic view of things. The principal benefits of the Medicare proposal, with self-funding of the health scheme through the one per cent levy and rearrangement of health insurance subsidies, will be a distinct advantage. It is interesting to note that, when Medibank was originally established, it had to be run with funds from Consolidated Revenue. It is no wonder that the Liberal Opposition gets its figures wrong. It was part of the Senate that refused to allow the levy that might have made Medibank more rational when it was originally introduced; instead, there was a run on Consolidated Revenue. Senator Baume asked where we would find the other $700m. One of the things about Minister Blewett is that he is remarkably adequate in finding facts and figures and sharing them with the community. He has actually spelt out that there will probably be a return of more than $700m. There will be the $600m from the taxable rebate to private health fund members coming to the Government, as well as the $100m that goes currently to subsidise private health funds and helps to keep their contribution rates down. Both of these present costs to the Government add up very nicely to the $700m Senator Baume needs, so he need not worry any more. Because the one per cent levy will be a saving for most people in terms of their health costs, there will be more money in people's pockets to spend. It may not be a large amount of money in our terms, but for many families it will be considerable. That kind of spending on goods other than health care can contribute to a consumer-led recovery from our rather dreadful economic situation at the moment. Another important part of this policy is in line with another Government aim, that is, of a more equitable redistribution of wealth. Those who have greater financial resources will be contributing more than those who have fewer resources. This Medicare policy is based on our Government's philosophy of 'from each according to his or her means'. The taxpayer's dollars will be allocated to areas of greatest need. As well, the introduction of Medicare with the levy is expected to reduce the consumer price index by 2 or 2. 6 per cent in the first half of 1984. That will be an enormous gain in terms of the economic recovery that is needed in this country. Senator Peter Baume —Except for pensioners. Senator CROWLEY —Once again Senator Baume raises this remarkable idea that if we keep inflation up it will advantage pensioners. That is a way of thinking that the rest of us do not buy at all. The pensioners are not stupid. They realise that if inflation falls their purchasing power is extended. They are not so stupid as the Liberal Opposition regards them. In addition, Medicare is in direct accord with the trade union movement's aim to assist lower and middle income earners. I quote from a joint statement issued by the Federal Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, and the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr Cliff Dolan: The smooth and successful introduction of Medicare on February 1, 1984 is an intrinsic part of the prices and incomes accord between the Australian Government and the ACTU. One of the major elements of the prices and incomes accord was the establishment of a single public health fund financed by an equitable levy on taxable income. The ACTU supports this as the fairest and most cost efficient way of operating a nation wide health fund plan. This view was reiterated and expanded at the National Economic Summit Conference when the communique stated: 'The Summit notes the announced health policies of the Government and believes that it is imperative that at the Commonwealth level a stable system should be introduced as a matter of urgency.' The communique further stated: 'The unions reaffirm their commitment that they will accept an offset in wage increases on account of the health insurance scheme.' I should have thought that that was a very significant part of our economic program. It is also a co-ordinated health policy whereby the Federal Government is the main administrator and has some considerable say about national policy guidelines, but responsibility and finance are shared with the States as appropriate. The States will be reimbursed fairly after removal of public hospital charges. The agreement will also require monitoring measures of hospital admissions, financial and operational arrangements to achieve economies in this area to be taken up by the States by mid-1985. Currently only South Australia and Tasmania can, for example, give the cost of hospital beds in their States as part of the previous cost sharing arrangements. After 1985 that information will be available from all States. That will lead to the possibility of better planning and rationalisation of funding and services. The Medicare program can be looked at in terms of its social benefits. It is a simple, fair and affordable system of universal health coverage. Its simplicity really needs to be dwelt upon. It means that it will be delivered to those who most need it. The low income earners will no longer be faced with the bureaucratic complexity of the health card system or even calculating their incomes to find out what they are eligible for. Currently it is estimated that there are about half a million people in Australia who are entitled to the health care card and who are not using it. The program does not disadvantage the articulate because it is simple; it advantages the less able in our community. Not only are we talking about people who may not speak English as a first language; we are also talking about people who are belted down with poverty, with a lack of education and with a build up of misfortunes. Those people do not sometimes know what their rights are. Further, it is not stigmatising. At the moment we have tiers of people in this community who are eligible for different things according to their incomes, when their income level is not dependent on their own ability, but on the circumstances of high unemployment. I think it is reasonable to quote Bevan at this stage. He rejected such proposals of stigmatising and health means testing for income payments when he was talking about the introduction of the British health scheme in the late 1940s. He said: Where a patient claimed he could not afford treatment, an investigation would have to be made into his means, with all the personal humiliation and vexation involved . . . and these are the least of its shortcomings. The really objectionable feature is the creation of a two standard health service, one below and one above the salt . . . The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and wealth is not advantage. That is exactly what Medicare is going to achieve. It is also an easy system because the coverage is automatic. The payments will be deducted weekly, fortnightly or monthly, depending on how one's wage or salary is paid, or else from an annual payment of income tax. As well it will be clearly categorised as a seperate payment. It will not be a levy by stealth, but it will be obvious to people that their one per cent is taken out, and they will know how much it is. Also the Medicare card will be available for all people. People in the community can choose whether they want a family card or an individual card. No doubt that little point will come up in the Committee of the Whole and I will leave my comments on that until then. Medicare will be affordable to all because it is based on the ability of people to pay rather than on a flat rate payment. In fact, those who are most in need will be exempt from any contributions at all. The discrimination between differences in benefits currently allows some pensioners to earn more than low income earners and still retain concession cards. It is estimated that the change in Medicare arrangements will further exempt 200,000 people. As well, despite the comments of Senator Baume, the Medicare arrangements will contribute to the funding of the community health services. These are a less costly alternative to a more institutional service and their main aim and focus is a preventive health delivery. As I said before, if the Government had left arrangements 10 years ago alone, we would be much further along the way of developing our community health services and our preventive health program. Medicare is universally equitable because it is a basic right that will be provided to all Australians-all people who reside here, visitors of six months duration or more and any Australian overseas who needs medical attention. It will particularly help those many disadvantaged groups in Australia-Aboriginal people, migrants, women and children. I now turn to the medical benefits. The health cover to all Australians is basically a humane scheme. It will be established under the Health Insurance Commission. I find the objections raised at this point by some of the members of the Opposition quite remarkable. They have said in the past that if people do not have to pay anything, they will overuse the service. I can just imagine the millions of Australians who now know that they do not have to find the cash in their pockets rushing off to the doctors' surgeries because that is a beaut thing to do in the afternoon! That is a ridiculous understanding of how Australian people behave. They do not do that. In 1975 an Australian Medical Association study confirmed that there was no increase in services under the period of Medibank compared with before or after it was established. The increase in service use showed no special hiccup during the period of Medibank. In fact most people appreciated very well their one per cent levy. They know what it is about. They are not stupid, as the Liberal Party Opposition keeps insisting. In fact, if honourable senators want to follow that argument more closely there is sometimes an inducement to people who have private health insurance to get their money's worth. It may well be that private insurance leads to more use or overuse of health services than a health levy. It is not insurance; it is an establishment of funding of a whole health system so that anybody in Australia who needs health care can get it without the financial burden at the time of the need. Because of the system being available from that levy there will be no need to postpone early attending of doctors in respect of illnesses. In fact, it may lead to a reduction in hospitalisation because of early intervention on the part of people. Senator Baume said that how health is paid for does not make any difference to the health care of Australians. I ask him about the people who get anxious when they cannot find money to pay for health care. I ask him about the number of people who have been risking bad debts over the last year or so and who duck away from doctors and have to shop for doctors because they are ashamed to go back and admit that they cannot pay their bills. That kind of worry is not healthy. Another claim that is made about Medicare is that it will thrust everybody into the public hospital system. The facts deny this. I quote from page 782 of the the House of Representatives Hansard. My learned colleague Dr Charlesworth-also a man of experience in these things-said last Wednesday: The latest Fraser health scheme-the fifth scheme-introduced on 1 September 1981 resulted in a massive increase in bed charges in public hospitals from $50 a day in August 1981 to $110 a day in September 1982. That was an increase of 120 per cent in 12 months. I will leave out what he said to the honourable members opposite. He went on to say: . . . Again honourable members opposite choose to ignore the facts. Bed occupancy during the year of the original Medibank scheme was 319 bed days per 1 ,000. Last year the bed occupancy rate was 292 bed days per 1,000 in private hospitals. In other words, under the private scheme there was less use. So I am not at all sure what point the Opposition wishes to make about that. The other important aspect of the Health Insurance Commission is the significant gains that will follow having a single computer for data collection. It seems that the main reason for this will be to pursue doctors who may be practising fraud or overservicing. I think that is a very important point and it has to be considered. I believe that the most important advantage of the single computer for data collection will be, first to the patients in terms of better service for medical costs; and secondly, and importantly, the epidemiological information that it will throw up about health and the distribution of services for health around Australia. It is information that people often say they desperately need. I can only agree with them. I think the single data collection will provide that. It will provide a first step to the more important data collection that we need. For example, we are often asked: What work do people do and how does that work contribute to their ill health? Whilst I do not think the steps have already been taken to collect that data through the single Health Insurance Commission computer, I am sure that the program will be much more manageable through that step. I urge my medical colleagues to consider that at some stage. I will certainly be pushing for it. There are some legal benefits flowing from the Medicare system. I have just mentioned one. The computer will provide evidence of medical fraud and allow much easier pursuit of it. There is also the possibility of checking on overservicing by doctors. Both will be a great gain in terms of containing the costs of the health bill to the community. There are other changes but I think they are best left until the debate at the Committee stage. Another point that has been offered as criticism of the introduction of Medicare is that people do not know about it, they are confused, and the matter has not really been debated. I find this claim quite remarkable particularly in light of the pieces of paper, the words printed and the many speeches that have been given by, firstly, shadow Minister and subsequently Minister Blewett and also by the Labor Party during and prior to the election campaign. Debate interrupted. Allegations Against Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services- Queensland-Transfer of Technology Contracts for Underdeveloped Countries The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 6.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(6.30) —I wish tonight to refer to the adjournment debate that occurred in the other place on Thursday, 15 September. In that debate, Mr Aldred, the recently elected member for Bruce, launched an unwarranted attack on the Victorian Police Minister, Race Mathews. Mr Mathews is my local State member. He is also Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for the Arts and a former member of this institution as the member for Casey from 1972 to 1975. I must say that one of the reasons he is the member for Oakleigh is that, when a vacancy occurred for endorsement to that seat, we as locals searched right throughout the Australian Labor Party for the best available candidate. We looked Victoria wide and we requested Mr Mathews to move into the electorate and to contest the seat, which he did. In other words, we went right throughout Victoria to find the person we regarded as the best candidate, a person of immense integrity. This is the person who was attacked the other night on virtually no evidence whatsoever. The accusation against Mr Mathews is that he is pre-empting the poker machine inquiry in Victoria. The evidence is a supposed transcript of a conversation between Mr Mathews and another Labor Party member in Mr Mathews's driveway. In his attack, Mr Aldred said: . . . on Sunday, 5 May- That is how he started off his attack. For a start, there was no 'Sunday, 5 May' this year. This individual, this member of Parliament, cannot even tell what day it is. Nevertheless, he mentions the date '5 May'. Mr Mathews consulted his diary and found that he left home early in the morning and arrived back late at night. Under these circumstances, it would have been very unlikely that he could have had a discussion in his driveway. But then, of course, Mr Aldred shifted his ground and said: 'Oh, no, it is really Sunday 8 May'. Mr Aldred produced a transcript. The moment I read the transcript I knew it was false. Let me put this on the record: Mr Mathews today in the State Parliament and elsewhere has denied that the conversation ever took place. The other party to the conversation, Mr 'V'-I know his identity but there is no need to reveal it here-has also publicly denied that any such conversation took place. I think it is indicative of the veracity of Mr Aldred's claims that he did not at any stage consult with Race Mathews. Nevertheless, this transcript has been put in the Hansard record in another place. First of all, it claims that Mr 'V' is an ex- Labor Party president of the local branch. That was never true. He has never held that position; he has never been a Labor Party president. The transcript goes on to claim that Mr 'V' is a bingo centre operator. He has never held such a position either. I believe that, for several reasons, the transcript is totally unrealistic. Reference is made in the transcript to the member for Glenhuntly as Mr Gerry Vaughan. I have known Dr Gerard Vaughan for 12 years and no one in the last 12 years has referred to him as Gerry, the same as no one really refers to me as ' Bob'. I am referred to as 'Robert', it is just a matter of personal choice. It is quite clear that within the Labor Party in the last 12 years no one-Mr 'V' or anyone else-has ever referred to Dr Vaughan as 'Gerry'. The second factor that makes me cast doubt on the veracity of the transcript is that there is reference to Mr Mathews using the terms 'centre' and 'right' to indicate groups within the Labor Party. They are terms that are used by two groups only-the Press and the Liberal Party. In the Labor Party in Victoria-and we acknowledge that these groups do operate-they are called the Labor unity group or the independents. We never refer to them as 'centre' or 'right'. That again indicates that this is a totally bogus document. How did Mr Aldred come by this document? Surely he would have checked it. Was it recorded? If the alleged coversation was recorded at night, I point out that I have seen Cole Crescent and I know how dark the driveway is. Therefore, what was supposed to have been said could not have been written down by another party . Are we to suppose that there was electronic surveillance? I doubt that this was the case, especially in these times. One could not admit to that. What I am saying is that I do not think that the transcript is at all genuine. I think it is up to Mr Aldred to come out and say who wrote it and how he obtained it so that we can see whether it has any truth to it at all. This is the third time that Mr Aldred has achieved some sort of publicity in his parliamentary career. The first grand occasion was in the parliamentary dining room where he stacked up seven glasses and poured wine over them splashing all the guests and the table. That is the first time he hit the national headlines. It was not something to be very proud about. But the second time-and this relates to the latest incident-was when he produced the great crime report. With the honourable member for Wantirna in Victoria, Mr Don Saltmarsh, Mr Aldred produced a massive document that described how organised crime existed in Australia. This was an earth-shattering document. However, when they went on television they could not reveal any of it. They dropped back to the old technique of saying: 'There is a royal commission set up' or 'a crimes commission is set up' and 'We will refer it to them but we cannot release any of the evidence at the moment'. I must say that rather uncharitably at the time I thought that no evidence existed and that it was a bogus report. However, they referred it to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police who is supposed to have taken absolutely no action on it. Could I say what Mr Mathews said in the Parliament about this crimes report? He said: The judgement of the senior police who investigated those allegations suggests that Aldred's disgraceful behaviour last week was totally in character. He went on to say that the official police comment on this report said that it was 'a spurious document which is baseless in fact and ridiculous in content'. The senior police officer went on in his evaluation to say: It could well be described as one of the best examples of defamatory libel seen in this century. They were the allegations made a couple of years ago, described as one of the greatest pieces of defamatory libel. This reflects how much we can believe this latest set of allegations. I just wonder why the honourable member for Bruce foisted this lot of slander against Mr Mathews who, as I say, has a reputation in the Labor Party above all others of integrity. It is true, though, that Race Mathews played a major role in getting Mr Aldred out of the seat of Henty. He won the State seat in 1979 and immediately the comparison was obvious. Here we had an innovative hard working local member, who started project after project. He started the relocation of the Oakleigh railyards; he started the Scotmans Creek park project. Compare this with an absentee landlord type of member, an indolent time server who did not even have the energy to become a decent place seeker. So what I am saying is that maybe Mr Aldred was slightly miffed that Mr Mathews had helped to ease him out of the seat of Henty. The second aspect is that the Liberals in Victoria are clearly out to get Race Mathews. They do not have the guts to do it in their own Parliament so they have sent someone up here to do it. The reason they are out to get him is that, involved in the Landeryou affair in Victoria and incidents relating to that, was a heap of accusations against Mr Landeryou by Mr Kennett, the State Leader of the Liberal Party, all of which Mr Mathews rebutted and rebutted effectively, so much so that he made Mr Kennett look like an idiot. So, what the Liberals have decided to do is to dredge up some information and to try to slander Mr Mathews' s name. In conclusion, I refer to the final part-if honourable senators like, the piece de resistance-of Mr Aldred's speech. He said: The Labor Party is a bankrupt party. It is bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of integrity and bankrupt of honesty. That is how he finished his speech. I must say this to members of the Senate: The Labor Party that he describes as lacking in integrity and honesty at least had enough integrity and honesty to reject his application to join the Murrumbeena branch of the Labor Party in 1972-73. We rejected his application for membership and, of course, within a year or two he turned up as the endorsed Liberal candidate for Henty. The branch minutes show that the Labor Party rejected Mr Aldred's application for membership on the grounds that it regarded him as an opportunist. Honourable senators opposite may not agree with all that I have said, but they should at least agree with one thing: Is it not time that we stopped endorsing people for parliament simply because their name starts with A? That is asinine. Surely, if the Opposition rejects all the electoral reform packages that we put to it, it will at least accept the draw for position proposal so that the Ken Aldreds of the world, who have only ever survived for the reason that their name starts with A, will not reappear in the national Parliament. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.41) —I take the opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate tonight to remind the Senate that the Federal Australian Labor Party Government seems to have developed a propensity to denigrate Queensland. It is election time; I realise that. Therefore the Labor Government believes that by criticising the Queensland Government it can shore up dwindling support for the Australian Labor Party in Queensland. Surely the Hawke Labor Government has learned that, every time it maligns Queensland and Joh, the National Party of Australia gains an extra 100 votes. Senator Georges —Is that right? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Yes. Queenslanders dislike knockers. Senator Walsh paid particular attention to Queensland's new dwelling approvals. For the record, I will put the facts straight. For the year ended August 1983 the number of new houses approved for construction in Queensland was up by 27.7 per cent on the same month last year. The ALP was trying to breed economic despondency in the State's housing industry for its own political gain. I recommend to honourable senators, and in particular to Senator Walsh and even to Senator Georges who is here listening tonight, the Business Review Weekly of 3 to 9 September and an article in it entitled 'Why Queensland is Still in Front'. It states that Queensland has held up the best of all Australian States during the recession and it is still the State with the greatest potential for real growth. That would be a very good book for Government senators to read. Queensland has only 16 per cent of the nation's population, but it continually contributes some 20 per cent of Australia's new dwelling approvals. The value of loans issued for home purchase purposes in Queensland through banks and permanent building societies in the first six months of 1983 was 41 per cent higher than for the same six months last year. I remind honourable senators that Queensland was the first State to introduce a State housing scheme. That scheme has lifted housing starts from 27,000 in 1982 to an estimated 35,000 in 1983. The achievements in welfare housing in Queensland also were outstanding. In 1982 -83 a record number of 4,000 dwelling units were provided. A greater number is planned for this year. Capital expenditure in the three years ending June 1984 for welfare housing will exceed $356m. Senator Hill —That is impressive. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I would say it is a very good result, and something very worth while for the people in Queensland. In 1982-83 over 2,000 families were assisted in home ownership at a cost of $74m. When we put all these figures together, they show that progress in Queensland has certainly been sure and steady. I also remind honourable senators that Queensland has a population growth of 3.1 per cent compared with the national average of 1.7 per cent. This population growth rate enhances building activity and opportunities. Senator Georges —It is the climate that does it. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I remind Senator Georges that we have had the climate since Australia was founded. It is amazing that so many people over the last few years have found that Queensland is a wonderful place with a wonderful climate. I am sure that it is because the State has an excellent government. I feel that the situation in Queensland cannot be as black as the Hawke Labor Government senators would like all Australians to believe. During the year ended 1982, 28, 241 people from various Australian States came to Queensland to live and to work . Honourable senators should also remember that lots of people from New Zealand and overseas also came to Queensland. The figure that is quoted so often is that 1,000 people a week come to live and to work in Queensland. Interestingly, I remind the Senate that Queensland's net interstate gain was almost equal to the sum total of the losses from New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. On reflection, I just say to all honourable senators that Queensland is a winner. Senator HILL(South Australia)(6.45) —I wish to raise a matter of concern to all people interested in Third World development, whether for humanitarian reasons or because they believe, as I do, that the future prosperity of the whole world will depend on continuing development of less developed countries. The matter relates to contracts for the transfer of technology from the developed world to the developing world and the development of an international code on the transfer of technology transactions. The urgency is that next month the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development will sponsor a fifth negotiating conference on the code which has had a tortured history over the last decade. Failure at this conference to resolve outstanding differences may well spell the end to negotiations and perhaps would be the most major setback for those who support the concept of a new international economic order. I raise the subject now because Australia has played a significant role in the negotiating process and perhaps with a more up-tempo approach is in a position to affect significantly the outcome of the final conference. This follows not only from our position as a major exporter and importer of technology, which means that we do not have a vested interest in protecting the interests of either side, but also from the fact that although we are grouped with the developed countries in the negotiating process, we nevertheless are held in high regard by the developing countries. We are seen as genuine and not opportunistic , much of which reputation I believe can be traced back to the attitudes of the previous Prime Minister on redressing the North-South dichotomy, and the understanding and practical assistance which we have given to the developing countries, particularly in Africa and the Pacific region. I regret that, although the public servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Trade, the Attorney-General's Department and other departments have battled away for years on this subject, I can find no ministerial statements giving credence to the importance of the matter or of the contribution we can make. I believe that it is time the Government rectified that omission and lifted the issue to the level of public profile that it deserves. I hope that by this contribution I might stimulate the Parliament and the relevant Ministers to give the matter more direct attention. The concept of the code is premised on the belief that technological development plays a major part in economic development, that the developed countries are a storehouse of scientific and technical knowledge and that a transfer of such technology to less developed countries on reasonable terms will therefore contribute substantially to their economic growth and development. However, developing countries, because of their relative economic weakness in negotiations for such contracts, have often had to pay unreasonable costs for such technology and to accept transfers often on unduly severe terms that are one sided and impose unnecessary restrictions which would constitute restrictive practices or monopolistic abuses prohibited under anti-trust legislation in the transferor developed country. For example, a study of 409 contracted agreements in Andean countries showed 317 which contained a total prohibition of exports, and most of the remaining agreements permitted exports to limited areas only. Additionally, there has been a growing awareness that technology being transferred is often unsuitable to national development plans and aspirations. As the development of local technological capabilities has become a more conscious objective, the imported technology has been found more often than not to be inappropriate. Incidentally, it is estimated that only 2 per cent of the world's research and development is carried out in developing countries. Technology transfer is not a universal panacea for economic growth in the Third World. One must not disregard the importance of labour, capital, education and training. Reflecting the view of one commentator that technology transfer has ' reinforced an inequitable framework for distributing the fruits of economic progress and promoting the welfare of a small elite, whose consumption and general lifestyle closely emulated those of the elite in developed countries', one must not forget the need for socio-economic reform. Few argue, however, that more ready access to more appropriate technology on reasonable terms and conditions cannot, and has not the potential to, play a major role in economic growth and improved standards of living in recipient nations. A code that will restructure existing relationships between suppliers and recipients of technology to achieve such objectives must therefore be of considerable value and importance. This has been generally recognised by the world community, at least since 1974, when it was included in the program of action on the establishment of a new international economic order. It was reinforced by the United Nations Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States , which demanded such a code of conduct and increased transmissions of technology to the Third World. The scheme of the proposed code is, on the one hand, to regulate the transfer of technology transaction, that is, the agreement of transfer between the parties immediately concerned and, on the other hand, to place substantive obligations upon States to achieve the code's wider objectives. As between the parties to the contract the code specifies practices and arrangements involving transfer of technology which are deemed undesirable, the restrictive trade practices provisions, and, provides for certain guarantees, responsibilities and obligations to be accepted by each of the parties to the transaction. In relation to the obligation by states, the code, first provides a guide for regional regulation of technology transactions; secondly, provides for the special treatment of developing countries, establishing the link between contracts for transfer of technology and programs for development assistance; and, thirdly, provides for the international co-operative activities of States to facilitate the flow of technology and the growth of technology capabilities of developing countries. But alas, despite enormous effort by many individuals over the succeeding decade, the code remains a heavily bracketed draft. Accepting the desirability of these objectives, what are the apparently insurmountable difficulties which I believe Australia can play a role in overcoming? As might be imagined, the major areas of dispute go well beyond the detail of the code and raise fundamental questions. The philosophical differences between the negotiating parties were evident from the time of the first draft and they still remain. The developing countries view technology as part of the universal human heritage and assert that all countries have a right of access to technological developments in order to improve their standards of living. Developed countries rather see technology as an asset, for which payment has been made, and that an enterprise is entitled to market. Through the major differences in the draft code, this difference of approach can be seen. Thus, there has been a reluctance by developed countries to accept that the code should consist of more than guidelines which are voluntary and non-binding. On the other hand, developing countries have maintained in principle that an internationally binding instrument is the only form capable of effectively regulating the transfer of technology. Similarly, group B or developed countries have sought to limit the code to truly international transactions, stating that the technology must be transferred across national boundaries. Developing countries, looking to the purpose, have delved deeper, arguing that the code should apply to transferors located in the recipient country but controlled by a foreign entity. The same difference of philosophy is evident in relation to the restrictive practices provisions. Developed countries have held the position that we should avoid restrictive practices which unreasonably restrain trade and adversely affect the international flow of technology. Developing nations see the restrictions not so much in the light of anti-trust but as practices which are essentially reprehensible because they are unfair in themselves and represent the result of undue influence by a strong supplying party over a weaker receiving party. Developing countries go so far as to say that the competent authorities of the technology acquiring country, in exceptional circumstances, must have the authority under the code to decide that it is in the public interest to disregard the restrictive practices provisions. This unilateral assessment has been unacceptable to the developed world. Consistent with the same approach, developed countries hold that the parties should have the freedom to choose the applicable law and the national forum before which disputes will be brought. The position of developing countries is, however, that the law of the acquiring country is the law applicable to matters relating to public policy and sovereignty. Anything short of such a position has been interpreted as an abrogation of the sovereignty of the recipient party and, therefore, undesirable . What has been happening in the meantime is that the slow pace of negotiations and the seemingly insurmountable differences of principle have encouraged developing countries, no longer willing to do business under the vendor's terms, to consider legislation, at both national and regional levels, which will secure technology transfers on terms more favourable to the realisation of their domestic priorities. This has become the trend. I do not wish to delay the Senate for too long but as one example of regional action I refer to the Andean Foreign Investment Code, under which a contract dealing with the importation of technology patents and trademarks must be submitted for examination and approval by each member nation. Thus, an assessment of the interests of the member nations can be made, particularly as to whether the proposed transfer is in violation of the investment code. A national example is that of the Mexican investment codes, which similarly regulate transfer of technology. I suggest that regional and national codes are a poor second best. From the point of view of the transferor, he has been able to provide no input into the terms of the restriction. From the point of view of the transferee, because the codes do not include the transferor, such countries run the risk of blocking out the good with the bad and, therefore, retarding development. Therefore, the arguments for a universal code remain strong. The critical questions relate to how to break the stalemate, how to reduce the philosophical differences that underlie the parties separate negotiating positions and how to give the parties greater confidence in the benefits of the code. I believe one of the stumbling blocks has been a failure on the part of developed countries properly to appreciate the benefits to their economies from the code in the short term but, particularly, the longer term. The code has principally been seen in response to the demands of less developed countries. In my opinion, major and significant benefits exist for developed countries. It is particularly in this area that Australia can bring its influence to bear. There has been a desire on the part of the developed countries that developing countries undertake to observe rules of applicable international laws, specifically in relation to compensation in the event of nationalisation of concessions and the like. By the code, it will be agreed that measures taken by states should be consistent with their international obligations. Furthermore, in protection of industrial property rights, developed countries have sought to ensure that developing countries accede to and abide by the provisions of the Paris Convention. It is now agreed that each country should ensure the effective protection of the industrial property rights granted under its national law. Somewhat flexible, it must be conceded, that at least it is a recognition of entitlement to protection which additionally-and I quote from the draft 'should be applied fairly, equitably and on the same basis to all parties in accordance with established procedures of law and principles and objectives of the Code'. The recognition of arbitration as a means of settling disputes as a worthwhile step in itself, as are the various criteria to be observed by the legislative, judicial and administrative processes of all countries. Additionally, as I said at the outset, there is a growing recognition among developed countries that, for their future trading advantage, development of the Third World will be necessary. Thus, to facilitate such development will provide returns beyond that directly related to the particular technology transaction involved. I am suggesting from the foregoing that a universal code would be of greater value to less developed countries than national or regional schemes which may not encourage transfer. Similarly, it appears that such a code can offer considerable advantage to developed countries in contributing to a stable investment environment geared to the protection of technology suppliers property rights and removal of the risk of expropriation or infringement. This leads me to the role Australia can play in helping the parties reach agreement. It should be possible to develop rules of reason designed to accommodate the interests of both suppliers and recipients of technology. To facilitate increased transfer, developing countries must be prepared to ensure order and predictability. To maximise the potential benefit of the transfer the developed countries must be prepared to accept that transfers should be on fair and reasonable terms and, therefore, for example, not including unreasonable restraints of trade which their unequal bargaining position might otherwise allow. Each has legitimate interests requiring the respect of the other. Australia can stress those interests. It seems to me that developed countries have placed insufficient emphasis upon the potential advantages of the code and have thus accepted in the draft national obligations of recipient parties which, although giving encouragement of a changing attitude, are insufficient to give confidence that the terms of technology transfer contracts will be respected. It appears that such concessions have been made because of a preoccupation by developed countries to win the argument for a non-legally binding code. Accepting the practical difficulties, the arguments for a legally enforceable code are substantial. It should be possible for the international community to reach agreements that are binding or, in other words, to reach a consensus in which no party will feel substantial loss in a legal acceptance. It has commonly occurred in relation to intra-anti-trust legislation and, with a positive attitude towards the benefits, could have occurred internationally. The outstanding disputes should not be irreconcilable. Less developed countries, in recognising the value of a truly international code, should accept the difficulties to developed countries of the group of 77 proposal in relation to jurisdiction and applicable law. In the spirit of seeking to achieve a new international attitude, developing countries must accept the desirability of denationalising such issues. Similarly, less developed countries should acknowledge the experience of the developing world that restraint of trade can, in some circumstances, be reasonable and beneficial to the community as a whole. Such determination should most fairly be made by an international tribunal. With different attitudes and a different approach, the result could have been a legally binding fair code with benefits to all, and that should remain the ultimate long term objective of all states. But that simply will not come to pass in the short term. Is it, therefore, worth pursuing a voluntary code? I would argue that it is. Practice might prove that a voluntary code is effective and that contracting parties accept the guidelines with regard to undesirable restrictive practices and the obligations which should be accepted with transfer of technology contracts. Practice might show that less developed countries, acknowledging a change resulting from voluntary adherence to the code, more readily accept the arguments of developed countries for reasonable protection of industrial property and a right to a fair return for the research and development which has resulted in the improved technology. Therefore, I urge that Australia support the concept of a five-year voluntary code and give the international community the opportunity to put into practice, in this limited field, the spirit of the new international economic order. In conclusion, I recognise that the code will provide but one step in overcoming the North-South dichotomy and that other proposals, such as national or regional centres for transfer of technology, regulation of transnational corporations, steps to reverse the 'brain drain' and further reform of the Paris Convention also deserve attention. But it has been fairly said that the international order which has emerged in the post-war era has been unable to satisfy the most basic aspirations of the majority of the world's peoples and, in that context, each small step which can make a positive contribution is worth while. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.03) —In the adjournment debate tonight Senator Bjelke-Petersen raised some matters concerning, in the first instance at least, housing policy and the level of housing approvals in the State of Queensland. She then went on to make some other comments in support of the Queensland Government, with which she appears to identify the State of Queensland. I assure Senator Bjelke-Petersen that her comments on dwelling approvals and other matters concerning the development of housing in the public and private sectors in Queensland will be drawn to the attention of the responsible Minister in this place, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Similarly, I assure Senator Robert Hill that his remarks concerning the desirability of a code for the transfer of technology contracts will be drawn to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.04 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Federal Police Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 158. Dried Fruits Export Charges Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 159. Judiciary Act-Rule of the High Court of Australia, dated 31 August 1983. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) by the Minister, describing lands acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act for specified public purposes. Re-establishment and Employment Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 161. Salaries and Wages Pause Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 160. War Graves Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 162. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 84 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 April 1983: (1) What is the current, and May 1982 free area of the income test for: (a) pensions; (b) unemployment benefits; and (c) sickness benefits. (2) What is the estimated full year cost of the free area of the income test for each pension in 1 (a). (3) What is the estimated full year cost of the free area of the income test for each benefit in 1 (b) and 1 (c). (4) What would be the full year cost of increasing the free area of the income test for: (a) pensions; (b) unemployment benefits; and (c) sickness benefits by (i) $10, (ii) $20, (iii) $40, and (iv) $60 per week. (5) What would be the full year cost of increasing the free area of the income test for each dependent child to: (i) $10, (ii) $20, (iii) $40, and (iv) $60 per week. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The current free areas of the income test are: (a) $30 a week (single), $50 a week (married couple). In determining assessable income under the income test, up to $6 a week may be disregarded in respect of each child. (b) and (c) $10 a week. In May 1982 the free areas were: (a) $20 a week (single), $34.50 a week (married couple) As now, up to $6 a week could be disregarded for each child. (b) and (c) $6 a week ($3 if under 18 years and one or both parents living in Australia). (2) The estimated full year cost of the free area of income for each pension is : age pensions: $718m invalid pensions: $100m widows' pensions: $70m supporting parents' benefits: $26m sheltered employment allowances: $7m It has been assumed that, if there were no free area, one-half of non-pension income within the present free areas would be deducted from the appropriate maximum pension entitlement and that the present income test would apply to the balance of the income. (3) The estimated full year cost of the free area of income for each benefit is : unemployment benefits: $15m sickness benefits: $2m It has been assumed that, if there were no free area, one-half of all non- benefit income up to $10 a week would be deducted from the appropriate maximum benefit entitlement and the present income test would apply to non-benefit income above $10 a week. (4) The full year cost of increasing the free area of income for pensions and benefits by various amounts is estimated to be: (b) (c) Weekly (a) Unemployment Sickness Increase Pensions benefits benefits $m $m $m (i) $10 60 14 2 (ii) $20 102 23 3 (iii) $40 164 34 4 (iv) $60 209 38 5 In the case of unemployment and sickness benefits, it has been assumed that the upper limit of income at which the 50 per cent taper operates would be increased by the same amounts as the free area. (5) The full year cost of increasing the free area of the pensions income test for each dependent child to various amounts is estimated to be: Increase to: (i) $10 : $6m (ii) $20 : $18m (iii) $40 : $34m (iv) $60 : $45m Note: for all parts, costs are based on the characteristics of pensioners as at 8 April 1983; characteristics of beneficiaries as at 12 November 1982 projected to estimated average beneficiary numbers in 1982-83; and rates of pensions and benefits current at May 1983. Question No. 149 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an article in CAI News April-May 1983, in which it gives the Confederation of Australian Industry-(CAI's)-position on social welfare at item 14; if so (a) does the Minister agree with the CAI's position; and (b) what is the Minister's position on the communique at paragraph 33. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: Yes. (a) and (b) The Government is committed to maintaining in real terms the existing indexed rates of pensions and benefits and will be proceeding to implement its announced policies to further assist those in need as quickly as possible as budgetary conditions permit. The communique and the CAI comments quoted are consistent with the Government's position. Question No. 259 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Vererans' Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What is the estimated cost of the Royal Commission on the use and effects of chemical agents on Australian personnel in Vietnam. (2) When is the Royal Commissioner expected to report to the Government. Senator Gietzelt —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The cost shown at page 223 of 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 1 is as follows: Expenditure to 30 June 1983-$2,800 Estimate 1983-84-$3,199,000 The estimate includes identifiable costs, including salaries for the Royal Commission-but not the Royal Commissioner-accommodation and similar requirements , assistance to witnesses and assistance to the Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia to prepare material for, and to be legally represented before, the Royal Commission. The estimate does not include the costs incurred by departments in undertaking activities related to the Royal Commission. (2) The Letters Patent issued to the Royal Commissioner require him to report not later than 30 June 1984, or such later date as His Excellency the Governor- General may be pleased to fix. Question No. 279 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: Is the present Government continuing to fund the synroc pilot plant project for storing radioactive waste; if so, why. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Government is funding the construction of a non-radioactive pilot demonstration plant at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission's Research Establishment at Lucas Heights, to manufacture full-sized canisters of synroc. The Government is also funding associated projects under the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration program in order to develop the production technology for synroc and test its performance as a medium for immobilizing radioactive materials. This work is being supported because of Synroc's high promise as a possible second generation radioactive waste containment material. In particular synroc has been demonstrated to have a high resistance to leaching in the presence of ground water at temperatures of up to 300 degrees C. Development of Synroc is a contribution by Australia to the international community, of an environmental protection technology for the resolution of radioactive waste storage and disposal problems and is consistent with the Labor Party's concern to overcome those problems. Question No. 262 Senator Chipp asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Is the Attorney-General aware of an advertisement appearing in the Australian on 6 July 1983, placed by 'People for a Free Australia' relating to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. (2) Is the Attorney-General aware that leaflets relating to this Convention have been distributed by other groups, for example, the Committee for Family Freedom and the Council for a Free Australia. (3) Is the Attorney-General aware that these groups might be funded to some extent from overseas sources in their campaign; if not, will he ascertain if overseas funds are going to these groups. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am aware that leaflets relating to the Convention have been distributed by some sectional groups. These groups have undertaken a concerted, and at times mischievous campaign aimed at preventing ratification of the Convention. Some of the emotive and unfounded allegations which have been made are that ratification of the Convention will circumscribe women's choice of lifestyle, force women into the workforce and children into creches, give power to outside bodies to make laws for Australia and lead to the end of family life as we know it. The Convention will not, of course, lead to any of these. (3) I am not aware that these groups are receiving overseas funding for their campaigns and at this stage I am not proposing to undertake a general investigation into the source of funding of these groups. Question No. 319 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: Has the Department of Industry and Commerce concluded the review of the Australian System of Tariff Preferences for developing countries; if not, when will the review be completed; if so, will the results of the review be completed ; if so, will the results of the review be published, when and how? (See question without notice, Hansard, 10 May 1983, page 313). Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The operation of the Australian System of Tariff Preferences for Developing Countries-ASTP-is the joint responsibility of the Minister for Trade and myself and, accordingly, the review is being undertaken by my Department in conjunction with the Department of Trade. A range of options concerning the future operation of the ASTP has been prepared for consideration by the Government. An announcement of the outcome of the review will be made by the Minister for Trade and myself once the Government has decided what changes, if any, should be made to the current system. Question No. 322 Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister for Social Security, on notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Why does the Northern Territory not have a representative on the new Disability Advisory Council. (2) Will the Minister for Social Security give an undertaking to expand the size of the new Council by one position to be filled by a representative from the Northern Territory, as the omission has caused considerable concern amongst the disabled community in the Territory. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) The Disability Advisory Council of Australia is made up primarily of talented people with disabilities from all over Australia who have a demonstrated commitment to the values of self-help. While it is not intended that its members should directly represent particular interests, geographical or otherwise, I would certainly hope that we could appoint a person from the Northern Territory to the Council as the limited term of current appointments expire. (2) I would not consider it an appropriate course of action to increase the size of the Council primarily in order to appoint an extra member from the Northern Territory. However, in view of the great interest in the Territory, I would be hopeful that the Council might place a visit there high on its list of priorities. Senator Walsh —On 24 August 1983 (Hansard, page 132), Senator Hearn asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, the following question without notice: What hormones and other additives are permitted in the diet of livestock produced for human consumption in Australia. The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: In Australia, no hormones have been approved for inclusion in the diet of livestock intended for human consumption. However, a wide range of other feed additives is permitted. These are used mainly in the production of pigs and poultry, other animals being mostly range fed. Details of these feed additives will be found in the booklet 'Livestock Feed Additives-Their Recommended Acceptable Use Levels, Claims and Limitations' which is prepared by my Department. A copy is provided for the honourable senator's information. Senator Gareth Evans —On 15 September 1983 (Hansard, page 731), Senator Chipp asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question about the impending insanity of the United States of America in deploying 464 ground launched Cruise missiles and 108 Pershing missiles in Europe, which is scheduled to begin in December of this year. Is the Government aware that because of the missiles' five to eight minute flight time to Soviet territory from Europe and because of their mobility, small size and accuracy, their deployment and the potential deployment of counter-missiles by the Soviets could result in a policy of launch on warning by the Soviets? Is the Minister aware that a policy of launch on warning means that the full might of a nuclear arsenal would be released on the planet on the basis of an automatic computer alert without any reference to political or military commanders? Does the Government not believe that such a policy, given a number of reported incidents where a computer error has led to a false alert of nuclear attack causing the launching of nuclear armed aircraft, would place nuclear arsenals a hair-trigger away from being used? Will the Government use every method it has at its disposal to prevent the deployment of these missiles? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government is aware that on current plans The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation intends to deploy 572 Pershing II and Cruise missiles over the four year period December 1983 to December 1987. In the initial phase of the deployments 16 Cruise missiles will be deployed in the United Kingdom and 9 Pershing II missiles in the Federal Republic of Germany in December of this year , and 16 Cruise missiles will be deployed in Sicily commencing in February 1984. These developments result from a collective decision taken by the 16 Western governments that constitute the NATO alliance. The planned deployments are the result of NATO's 'dual-track' decision of December 1979 whereby NATO decided to modernise its intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe to counter the growing threat posed by the Soviet SS20 missile, while at the same time inviting the Soviet Union to engage in negotiations to limit intermediate-range nuclear missiles on both sides. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force-INF-negotiations opened in Geneva in November 1981. Ground launched Cruise missiles-GLCMs-will require some time, possibly several hours, to reach their targets from scheduled deployment sites in Western Europe. I understand that the flight time for the Pershing II missiles, which will be deployed solely within the Federal Republic of Germany, will be of the order of fourteen minutes depending on the distance from the launch site to the intended target. The warning time for these missiles could be less. These short flight and warning times would not constitute a radical break from the past. Similar considerations apply in the case of Soviet SS20 missiles already stationed in the western Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and targeted on Western Europe, and to submarine-launched ballistic missiles-SLBMs-held by both sides for some years now and stationed within range of Europe and the United States. The Soviet Union has claimed the right to take appropriate counter measures should the NATO INF deployments proceed, but we are not aware that it has adopted or is about to adopt a policy of 'Launch-on-warning', that is, a policy which would permit a retaliatory strike to be launched when an aggressor's missiles were first detected in flight. Soviet policy on the central questions of nuclear doctrine is not entirely clear, although in its public statements at least the Soviet Union has given an undertaking that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. As with the United States, there is reason to believe that control over nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union is exercised at the highest political level. The Government shares the widely expressed concerns about the possibility of the accidental outbreak of nuclear war and about reports of false alerts of nuclear attack. It would be gravely concerned about any development which increased the likelihood of nuclear war. At the same time the Government recognises that the arms control negotiations between the two super powers have increased knowledge and understanding about each side's capabilities and intentions. This process may, in turn, have helped to make it less likely that there will be an outbreak of nuclear war by accident. The Government believes that the hot-line agreements between the Soviet Union and the Western nuclear powers, as well as the 1976 Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of the Outbreak of Nuclear War between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have contributed to this process. The Government has also noted that both super powers have proposed additional confidence-building measures further designed to assist in lessening the risk of nuclear war in their current bilateral arms control negotiations in Geneva. The Australian Government welcomes this development as a practical contribution to lessening the risk of the accidental outbreak of nuclear war. The Government is concerned that continued escalation of the arms race would increase the risk of nuclear war. For this reason it is encouraging negotiations between the super powers designed to reduce their nuclear and conventional forces. The Government would clearly prefer that a situation existed in Europe such that NATO did not consider it necessary to deploy cruise or Pershing II missiles to enhance its security. The present situation has arisen, however, because the Soviet Union was perceived by NATO to have gained an advantage through the deployment of its SS20 missiles. These deployments commenced in 1977 and the Soviet Union now has 351 SS20s in place, 243 of them assigned to Western European targets. By contrast, NATO has no comparable INF systems in place and believes the present imbalance to be detrimental to its security. It is important that the INF negotiations should arrive at a satisfactory outcome which would be mutually agreed and verified. The zero option proposed by the United States and endorsed by NATO would have eliminated the entire range of intermediate-range nuclear missiles. This proposal did not find favour with the Soviet Union. Australia supports the objective of imposing limits on and ultimately eliminating intermediate-range nuclear missiles on a global basis. The Government urges the super powers to reach agreements which will lead to both qualitative restraints and qualitative reductions in nuclear and conventional forces. It has presented its views to the United States at the highest levels as well as to other Governments and in international discussions.