Wednesday, 28 March 1984 The President (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Oath of Allegiance To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Undersigned states: We object to any alteration to the Oath of Allegiance as incorporated in the Citizenship Act. In particular we object to the deletion of reference to the Queen and to the optional reference to God. We pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ensure that there is no alteration to the present Oath of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition from parents representing the government schools in New South Wales respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Federal Government to re-affirm publicly that its primary obligation is to government schools. 2. They support the Federal Government's policy decision which have reduced funding to wealthy private schools and which have broken the nexus between government and non-government school costs. 3. They endorse the Federal Government's opposition to the provision of a 'base grant' to all non-government schools. 4. They ask that the Federal Government create a general recurrent resource base which is adequate for government schools through the provision of increased recurrent funding. 5. They call upon the Federal Government to negotiate agreements with State/ Territory Governments which will ensure a planned program of improvements in government schools throughout the coming decade. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's prayer: We also call on the Parliament assembled to reaffirm our genuine loyalty to our head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II. 'God Save the Queen!'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Archer (from 20 citizens). Petitions received. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) expresses its concern over this Labor Government's restraints in the area of defence training and maintenance schedules. (b) criticises the Government for its lack of positive encouragement of domestic industry to participate in Australian design, development and production for defence purposes, an initiative which would be a simple and direct means of assisting Australian industry regain international competitiveness. (c) condemns the Federal Government for its abysmal record in the funding of defence areas, which has seriously affected establishment levels in regular and reserve forces, flying and steaming times for aircraft and ships, training levels in the three services, the maintenance of stocks of fuel, munitions and spare parts and the scrapping of the school cadets. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that five sitting days after today I shall move: That the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Regulations 1983 No. 331 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that five sitting days after today I shall move: That the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that five sitting days after today I shall move: That the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 59 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that five sitting days after today I shall move: That Regulation 3 of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 and made under the Customs Act 1901, be disallowed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that five sitting days after today I shall move: That the Classification of Publications Regulations, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1984 No. 2, made under the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, be disallowed. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the devastation caused by Cyclone Kathy to the town Borroloola in the Northern Territory; (b) commends the town people of Borroloola for their fortitude in the face of that disaster and Constable Mick Van Heythuysen for his courage in assisting the people to safety so that there was no loss of life in the town; (c) extends its sympathy to the relatives of Peter Leenahan who lost his life in the cyclone; and (d) calls on the Government to co-operate with the Government of the Northern Territory to provide relief and assistance to the people of Borroloola as quickly as possible. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —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 Overseas Projects Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978. 2. A.C.T. Milk Authority-Annual Report 1982-83. 3. Canberra Commercial Development Authority-Annual Report 1982-83. 4. Fishing Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. 5. Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statements on expenditure for November, December 1983 and January 1984. 6. Committee of Review to Examine the Further Development of Launceston General Hospital and the Hospital Development Needs of North East Tasmania. 7. Forward Estimates of Budget Outlays-Report covering the period 1984-85 to 1986-87. 8. Corporate Affairs Commission of the Australian Capital Territory-Annual Report 1982-83. 9. Operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-Annual Report 1982-83-Pursuant to section 314 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966-together with the text of a Statement by the Attorney-General relating to the Report. 10. Trade Practices Act Proposals for Change-Publication-together with the text of a Statement by the Attorney-General relating to the Report. 11. Telecom and Law Enforcement-Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives on 27 March 1984 by the Minister for Communications. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.06) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of the Bill I am introducing today is to make certain amendments to the co-operative companies and securities scheme legislation consequent upon the proposed new articles and business rules of the various stock exchanges permitting corporate membership of the exchanges and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates. The bill also contains a number of other relatively urgent amendments, of a technical nature, to the co-operative scheme legislation. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable senators, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and some of the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The remainder of the speech read as follows- Co-operative Companies and Securities Scheme The formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administrative regulating companies and the securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the formal agreement, the Bill before honourable senators has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State legislation. As indicated in our business regulation policy, the Government considers that the co-operative scheme should be retained while it demonstrates progress in the achievement of its aims. However, in the longer term we would prefer to move to a national system of companies and securities regulation administered by the national Parliament. Neither system can be effective if it does not extend to the whole of Australia, including the Northern Territory. I am currently corresponding with the Northern Territory Government seeking its entry to the scheme. Content of Bill A brief outline of the Bill is set out at paragraphs 1 to 4 of the explanatory memorandum. I will briefly mention the main provisions in the Bill. More detailed commentary on the individual provisions is contained in the explanatory memorandum. Time-sharing The proposed amendments define 'time-sharing' for the first time. Time-sharing has become a popular method of allowing multiple use by different families or groups of one facility, spread throughout a year or other specified period of time: For example, a holiday unit may be booked by different groups for separate blocks of three weeks per year, throughout a year. Time-sharing schemes are different from regular or return bookings of rented holiday homes, in that the time-sharers 'own', in common with those who share the premises at other times, the facilities they use. The marketing to the public of the bulk of time-sharing schemes is regulated under the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act under the 'prescribed interest' provisions of those Acts. Division 6 of Part IV of the Companies Act 1981 restricts the offering of prescribed interests to the public except in the manner set out in that Division. Also, the National Companies and Securities Commission in July 1983 issued a policy statement on time-sharing arrangements. This indicates the circumstances in which the NCSC is prepared to relax some of the provisions of Division 6. 'Prescribed interests' is a wide net which catches most profit making schemes and investment schemes marketed to the public. Examples of other types of schemes which are or have been liable to be regulated in the same manner include property trusts, franchises, various plantation schemes, horse-racing syndicates and retirement villages. The purpose of the proposed amendments to the definition of prescribed interest in both the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act-clauses 4 and 10 (2) of the Bill-is to ensure that all time-sharing schemes will continue to be regulated under the prescribed interest provisions, notwithstanding that in some cases the investment in question is structured by reference to rights attaching to shares in a corporation. The Ministerial Council resolved to make this change to close what was perceived as a loophole created by the decision in Brentwood Village v. Corporate Affairs Commission (N. S.W.). In that case, the N.S.W. Supreme Court held that rights attached to a share that may normally, when considered apart from the share, have been characterised as prescribed interests, are indivisible from the share and, therefore, not subject to Division 6 of Part IV. Accordingly, time-sharing schemes structured in this way would not require execution by the 'management company' of a trust deed appointing an approved trustee to protect the interests of investors. The Ministerial Council has taken the view that consistency of treatment of time-sharing schemes should be maintained and that the higher degree of disclosure and regulation under the prescribed interest provisions should apply to all such schemes. Registration of Charges Paragraph 200 (1) (h) of the Companies Act requires registration of a lien or charge on a crop, a lien or charge on wool, or a stock mortgage. Clause 5 of the Bill will amend section 200 of the Companies Act so as to clarify what securities come within paragraph 200 (1) (h). The effect of the amendment will be that a lien or charge on a crop, a lien or charge on wool, or a stock mortgage over property of a company is registrable under the companies legislation of the place of incorporation of the company if it is registrable under specified legislation in the State or Territory where the property the subject of the security is situated. Some types of charges that fall within the scope of section 200 of the Companies Act and hence are required to be registered under the Companies Act, may also be required to be registered under separate State or Territory legislation. Section 211 of the Companies Act attempts to overcome the need for dual registration in relation to securities over personal chattels with the meaning of the A.C.T. Instruments Ordinance 1933 . However, doubts have been expressed whether section 211 of the Companies Act and State codes satisfactorily removes the obligation to comply with the relevant provisions of the Instruments or Bills of Sale legislation in the various jurisdictions. In respect of bills of sale over personal chattels, the Companies Act interacts with the relevant Australian Capital Territory legislation as originally intended: section 211 has been slightly re-cast simply to ensure that the Companies Code applying in each State will interact equally well with the local Bills of Sale legislation in each particular State. However, section 211 as it applies in the Australian Capital Territory does not currently exempt persons registering crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages under the Companies Act from the operation of the Instruments Ordinance. This does not, however, affect the validity of these securities but failure to effect dual registration under the Instruments Ordinance will result in the chargee not being able to take the benefit of certain rights conferred under that legislation which he would not have at common law. The amendments to section 211 contained in clause 6 of the Bill will remove the need for dual registration in relation to crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages and will ensure that registration of the relevant security under the Companies Act will confer on the chargee the benefit of any rights contained in the instruments Ordinance. In the process of ensuring that the companies legislation interacts as intended with the relevant local legislation relating to bills of sale, crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages, translator regulations will be required in each State which differ according to the different approaches currently adopted in the particular Instruments or Bills of Sale legislation. Stock Exchanges Shortly after the Trade Practices Act 1974 came into effect, the six capital city stock exchanges applied to the Trade Practices Commission for authorisation of various restrictions imposed on members by stock exchange business rules amongst which are rules relating to brokerage rates to be charged by members and rules governing eligibility for membership of stock exchanges. After a process of public consultation and the issue by the TPC of a Draft Determination in June 1982, the TPC released its Final Determination on brokerage and stock exchange membership on 27 September 1982. The TPC denied authorisation of the stock exchange business rules for fixed brokerage rates, but allowed a phasing-in period for unfixed rates. Interim authorisation was granted until 1 April 1984 for fixed rates on all transactions and until 1 October 1985 for fixed rates for that part of a transaction up to a threshold value of $100,000. The TPC denied authorisation of stock exchange business rules which restricted entry to membership of stock exchanges, prevented incorporation of stockbroking businesses and restricted certain other activities of stockbrokers. The TPC granted interim authorisation until 1 April 1984 for the current membership rules in order to give stock exchanges the opportunity to make amendments to their rules. To date, the TPC has granted interim authorisation to the draft business rules relating to the unfixing of certain brokerage rates and to the draft articles of the various exchanges dealing with membership of the stock exchanges by natural persons and corporations. Parts III and IV of the Bill contain amendments to the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 and to the Securities Industry Act 1980 consequent upon the proposed new rules of the stock exchanges permitting corporate membership and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates as from 1 April 1984. On 14 July 1983 at a meeting of the Ministerial Council, I announced that it was the Commonwealth's firm view that the stockbroking industry should remain subject to the Trade Practices Act. The opening up of membership of the exchanges to corporations and the unfixing of certain brokerage rates from 1 April 1984 represents a major watershed in the development of the securities industry in Australia. It will undoubtedly lead to both innovation and increased competition among brokers. The Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System clearly favoured deregulation of brokerage rates and removal of the barriers against the entry of corporate members to the exchanges. The amendments contained in the Bill make necessary changes consequent on the TPC's authorisation and the alterations to the Articles, Memoranda of Association and business rules of the Stock Exchanges. This represents the first stage in the adaptation of the legislation to the impending changes to the stockbroking industry. In the months ahead, as the new system settles down, it is likely that the Ministerial Council will need to address a number of further issues that may require amendment of the securities industry legislation. These will be best dealt with after the market and the National Companies and Securities Commission have had some experience with the changed environment. Nevertheless, there are some issues which all parties recognise may need to be examined. I would like to discuss some of these issues. Clause 10 (1) of the Bill contains a number of amendments to the Securities Industry Act which are designed to ensure that a body corporate is covered by certain key definitions such as 'member', 'member firm' and 'sole trader'. I believe that further consideration will need to be given whether any provisions in the legislation should be extended to a director of a member corporation who is himself a member of an exchange. The proposed new articles of the stock exchanges will enable a broker to be a member of more than one exchange. This raises the question whether the present approach in the legislation in relation to fidelity funds is still the most appropriate. The fidelity fund provisions in the legislation were originally drawn up on the basis that a broker would be a member of only one exchange and each exchange would have its own separate fidelity fund. The Bill does not disturb the present position of each exchange having a separate fidelity fund and the effect of clause 17 in respect of a broker who is a member of more than one exchange is to make the fidelity fund of each exchange that has admitted the broker as a member liable for claims against the member's fraud, subject to the existing $500,000 limit in respect of each member. I believe that, in the longer term, it will be necessary for serious consideration to be given to the question whether the time has not come for the introduction of a single, National Fidelity Fund. While I do not wish to pre-empt any decisions on this important issue, the establishment of a single national fund would seem to be logical in the light of the proposed new business rules that will enable a broker to be a member of more than one exchange. I should add that the future structure and function of the fidelity funds will have to be considered in conjunction with the proposals of a Centralised Scrip and Accounting System-CENSAS. The CENSAS proposals are presently being reassessed by the stock exchanges and the future role of the fidelity funds as an investor protection mechanism will be critically examined by governments when considering revised proposals on CENSAS put forward by the exchanges. The inevitable entry of financial institutions into the stockbroking industry will raise new conflict of interest issues that will need to be addressed. The Ministerial Council has therefore directed the NCSC to monitor the operation of the securities industry legislation and stock exchange rules that relate to conflict of interests in the stockbroking industry and to report to the Ministerial Council on any amendments to the Securities Industry Act and stock exchange rules which appear desirable. Financial Impact Statement The Bill is unlikely to have any material effect on costs, revenue or savings to the Government. There is not expected to be any loss of revenue in the Australian Capital Territory to the Government from the removal of the need for dual registration under the Instruments Ordinance in respect of crop liens, wool liens and stock mortgages as none of these securities has been registered in the Australian Capital Territory since 1979. The impact of the Bill on industry and the general public would be varied and because in most cases it would be indirect, the net costs or benefits are difficult to quantify. For some promotors of time-sharing schemes, that is those who, after the Brentwood decision, wished to structure their scheme by reference to rights attaching to shares in a corporation, the expenses connected with the preparation and lodgment of an approved deed and with the costs associated with the appointment and remuneration of a trustee would no longer be avoided. On the other hand, these direct costs would need to be set off against the intangible public interest benefits accruing to investors in the scheme who would be afforded greater protection by reason that the scheme was being regulated under the prescribed interest provisions. While the direct pecuniary savings to the public from the removal of the need for dual registration under the Instruments Ordinance and the Companies Act would be small, the intangible benefit of simply not having to complete the registration process must also be taken into account. This observation must of course be qualified by the fact that no crop lien, wool lien or stock mortgage has been registered in the Australian Capital Territory since 1979. There would not appear to be any direct costs associated with the stock exchange amendments in the Bill as these are only consequent upon the proposed new stock exchange rules on corporate membership and brokerage rates. I commend the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to enable certain information obtained under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to be furnished to the Honourable John Patrick Slattery for the purposes of a special commission of inquiry established under the Special Commission of Inquiry Act 1983 of New South Wales. Bill presented by Senator Gareth Evans, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Honourable senators will be aware that in December last year Parliament passed the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Act 1983. That Act allowed the Attorney-General to consider any request from the New South Wales Special Commissions of Inquiry, constituted by Mr Justice Cross, for information relating to the commission or intended commission of a serious criminal offence which had been obtained by the lawful interception of telecommunications. Mr Justice Cross was appointed to conduct three separate inquiries under the Special Commissions of Inquiry Act 1983. Two of those inquiries have been completed. The third inquiry, relating to the circumstances surrounding the early release of certain prisoners, was in progress when Mr Justice Cross resigned his commission because of ill health. On 27 March the New South Wales Governor appointed Mr Justice Slattery to conduct that incompleted inquiry. Pursuant to the terms of the 1983 amendment to the Telecommunications ( Interception) Act, I had communicated to Mr Justice Cross certain information obtained by the Australian Federal Police by lawful interception of telecommunications. The Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1984 is necessary to permit that information to be furnished to Mr Justice Slattery for the purposes of his special commission of inquiry. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Peter Baume) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1983. Bill presented by Senator Peter Baume, and read a first time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.12) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to omit certain sections which were added to the Health Insurance Act 1983 and the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1983, which are the cause of the present dispute between the medical profession and the Government. The purpose of the Bill is to attempt to resolve the dispute, which is a most serious threat ever to the provision of health services in Australia. This Bill goes further than another Bill which has been discussed widely in the Press and which I understand has been introduced by Senator Haines. That Bill picks up an amendment which I moved on 21 September 1983 during consideration of the Medicare legislation. At that time the balance of Australian Democrat votes opposed my amendment and, for reasons I did not understand, the amendment was lost in the Senate. But the Democrats now recognise this error and propose not only to support but to recommit the amendment which I moved in September. That signals a remarkable turn-round by three senators but it is one which I welcome. It is said that the road to Damascus may be trodden in different ways. The scales have now fallen from the eyes of several of the Democrats and members of the Australian Labor Party. It is a belated but welcome move. I shall be delighted to see the Liberal Party amendment of 1983 picked up, but though that amendment will improve the present situation and although it may be necessary, it is not sufficient in our view to resolve the problem before the House and the people of Australia. The reason is that the situation facing the people of Australia has altered significantly since the Medicare legislation was introduced. A confrontation of unprecedented proportions has emerged and has been added to by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) confronting, abusing, traducing and pillorying the medical profession. He has done so as a Minister of the Crown in a way that no Minister for Health has ever done since Federation. In addition, that great preacher of consensus and national reconciliation, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), chose in the interests of national reconciliation to describe the members of the medical profession-my own profession and that of Senator Grimes and Senator Crowley; a profession which has always commanded high respect in the community-as the builders labourers of the professions. Those are hardly the words of someone genuinely interested in achieving consensus in Australia. I want now to try to reduce to essentials the problems before us in Australia. We can, in fact, do this. Section 17 of the Health Insurance Act provides that Medicare benefits will not be payable to patients treated as the private patients of visiting medical officers in public hospitals unless the doctor has signed a contract of service in a form approved by the Federal Minister for Health. That is the first fact. This is of some significance given that 80 per cent of the nation's hospital beds are public hospital beds. The proportion is even higher if we look at beds for the provision of surgical services which would be affected by this agreement. Therefore, of course, a high proportion of the practice of surgery or the procedural specialties in Australia will fall within this provision of the Act. The Minister has intervened in what has traditionally been a matter between doctors and the hospitals and doctors and the State governments. It goes very close to being a back-door attempt to impose civil conscription upon the profession in a way which is specifically excluded in the Australian Constitution. Senator Tate —Take it to the High Court. Senator PETER BAUME —I understand and accept Senator Tate's interjection. I imagine it will be determined in the High Court in the appropriate way if people wish. I am simply making an observation. Section 17 goes further than that. It gives the Minister unfettered powers to determine the acceptability of a contract, with no provision for appeal, no provision of any kind. The Parliament's role, of course, is to approve or not approve guidelines in relation to those contracts. That is the thrust of the amendment I moved last September and which will be moved later by Senator Haines. The trouble that has arisen is that the conditions which might be included in those contracts might be totally unacceptable to one of the parties; but that party would nevertheless be required to accept the conditions and would have no right of appeal and no recourse at all. The Government cannot put its Medicare scheme into effect without the co-operation of the providers of the services. The Minister has failed at any stage to negotiate satisfactory arrangements with the doctors. That is a failure by him in his ministerial duty because no one in his right mind would imagine that he could bring in a new health scheme which will have to be delivered by one profession and not make arrangements with that profession for the satisfactory delivery of the services. It has been the Minister's actions, backed up by his Government, that have brought on this crisis. It is a crisis which has seen a profession for the first time in its history facing a lockout from the hospitals in which it has operated . For the first time in history health care consumers in this country-you and me , Mr President-are faced with the possibility that when they receive care from their doctors they will not be able to get Medicare benefits in relation to services they receive. It is a crisis which stands to disadvantage Australians seeking health care and seeking for themselves health services. Dr Blewett has now come forward with his own Bill. He says that it will take up what he calls the constructive proposal made by the Australian Democrats so that the guidelines of the Federal Minister can be subjected to scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament and disallowed if one of those Houses disagrees with them. Dr Blewett's memory really must be very short. The constructive proposal, as he calls it, was put up here by the Opposition last September and was soundly defeated by his colleagues and his Government. This crisis could have been partly averted had they had the good sense then to support what they think they might be supporting now. It is not enough now, in view of the water that has flowed under the bridge, to resolve the crisis. Senator Grimes, speaking for the Government last September, described this constructive proposal as an unnecessary impediment. That was a convenient description, one which I am sure he will wish to forget now. As I mentioned, this amendment does not go far enough. It does not address adequately the clear principle at stake. It does not give to the doctors who are going to be affected by the contracts the kinds of rights of appeal and negotiation which are enjoyed by unionists in their negotiations or, indeed, are open to most people who are expected to be one of the parties to a contract. It is that matter which the doctors find so unacceptable. Further, of course, the doctors themselves are not entirely happy about a situation where the only recourse, the only right of appeal, would be not one which they could take but one which might be taken in the Parliament by third parties and which, of course, would be dependent upon the balance of power of the day. What will the Minister do, what will the Government do if it fails to recognise the gravity of the crisis facing medical practice in Australia? If it fails to negotiate openly and constructively to resolve that crisis the delivery of some routine services may break down, especially, as I say, if doctors who have refused to sign the contracts but who are still willing to work are locked out of hospitals. The fact is that the services required by the Australian public will be placed in jeopardy. Unless the Minister is willing to import large numbers of doctors, unless he brings into this country doctors from other countries, it will be necessary for him to win round the medical profession of this country to be the agents to deliver health services under his Medicare scheme. The Minister must understand that that is what is necessary. It is for that reason that we have proposed this Bill. The Minister will not be able to import doctors in some specialities. He has no option but to find a way of dealing with doctors in Australia in such a way that they can join his scheme with a sense that there has been due process and fair dealing. The argument revolves around a matter which is not central to the introduction of Medicare. Medicare, after all, is a matter of health insurance payments. This issue does not relate to health insurance payments. It relates to the circumstances under which doctors in Australia will be willing to deliver services within the Medicare framework. The argument is not central to the introduction of Medicare. It is an attempt to move towards the conscription of the medical profession and it is quite inconsistent with any ideas of national consensus. What the Government has done is destined to prolong the bitterness between an honourable profession and a Minister of the Crown and that is not in the best interests of people. It is for that reason, in the interests of everyone-the public who consume the services, the Government which has a national responsibility and the doctors who provide the services-that we have sought to introduce this Bill. This legislation is a genuine attempt to find a circuit breaker, to find a way of reducing the tension for a period to allow negotiations to take place. Currently an investigation is under way under the chairmanship of Professor David Penington to examine the options which might provide for the Minister some way of renegotiating the arrangements. That inquiry will report in due course. But in the meantime we have a government and a profession in direct conflict, with the Australian public caught in the middle. Because Professor Penington's inquiry is under way, because it will report and because there is a need for a circuit breaking exercise, in the meantime we have proposed a Bill which will remove the offensive provisions from the Act. We have introduced the Bill on the basis that the parliament can come back, re-examine the matter in the light of what Professor Penington says and then put into place instead of these provisions some new provisions which in fact we hope will allow the Medicare scheme, which is now the law of the land, to be introduced without the bitterness and confrontation that we have at present. I say again, that if the issue of payment were central to Medicare's operation there might be a different situation but it is not central. It does, however, prejudice the rights of ordinary citizens. Any doctors who continue to work but who refuse to sign contracts because the contracts are unsatisfactory may find that their patients cannot draw Medicare benefits for the services which have been provided. The only reason they may not be able to draw the benefits is that their doctors have not signed unsatisfactory contracts. Therefore, I have proposed that we should proceed to examine this Bill to see whether it provides a way of reducing bitterness, of breaking the enormous confrontation which has existed and giving some prospect of getting matters back to a negotiated and reasonable settlement. First, we think that this Bill is such a circuit breaker. We think it will reduce tension between the Government and the profession, always assuming that it is the goal of everyone in the Senate to see that tension reduced. Secondly, it would cover adequate arrangements for the period until the Penington report became available. At that stage we would hope that cool heads and considered judgment would allow us to propose some longer term solution in the interests of medicine and the Australian consumers. What this Bill is not about is more or less money for individual doctors. That is a furphy which the Minister has raised in an attempt to confuse the issue and denigrate the profession. Let us put on record that most existing contracts provide for the charging of schedule fees. They provide for hospitals to collect facility charges. They provide for maxima on personal earnings. They provide that the fees represent only gross earnings and that the doctors receive less. There is very little monetary effect for most doctors in what is at issue. What the dispute is about is the principle that a Minister of the Crown should not have the unfettered power to impose contracts unacceptable to one party, to present them on a take it or leave it basis and to move towards civil conscription of the profession by the back door. To resolve this issue will require some skill and sensitivity- more, I might say, than has been shown to date. We would like to play our part in trying to assist the Government to come towards the resolution of this issue and, in the short term, to work towards a lowering of the quite extraordinary tension which exists. One final word: The stakes in this matter are very high. The medical profession has never, in my experience, been as united on an issue as it is on this one. Doctors will not sign non-negotiable contracts. That may be good or bad; but it is a fact. They will not sign them. The Government has to find a way to break this impasse in the interests of Australian people. If the doctors are then excluded from the hospitals in which they have worked this will represent a lock out of doctors by the Government and the States. It will sour relations even further between the parties and it will create bitterness which would last for years and years which, I submit, would not be in the interests of doctors or the parties themselves. I think that support for this Bill would provide an option which might lead us to a reasoned resolution. It would provide, at least for a short term, a cooling off. It would get us through the interregnum until the Penington report came down. It would provide for the possibility of compromise and for the easing of a situation in which a large and honourable profession has lost its faith or trust in the Minister of the Crown to whom it relates. We need a procedure to allow that trust and confidence to be restored. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Haines) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. Bill presented by Senator Haines and read a first time. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.31) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. I apologise to the Senate for not observing the normal courtesies and having copies of that speech distributed. A slight technical hitch rather than any intention to offend was the cause of that. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The intention of this Bill is to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove from the Minister for Health the sole power to set guidelines relating to agreements between doctors and public hospitals. Under the current system it is possible for the terms and conditions of employment of a medical specialist with private patients in a public hospital to be unilaterally determined and/or changed by the Minister. There is no right of appeal for all of any of the medical practitioners affected; no parliamentary scrutiny; and no requirement for consultation between the Minister and the doctors concerned. This amendment will ensure that any guideline or guidelines gazetted by the Minister under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act will be regarded as a regulation or regulations. The guideline or guidelines will therefore be subject to disallowance by either House of Parliament within 15 sitting days. The amendment therefore provides the only meaningful form of appeal possible in a piece of legislation which involves both State and Federal governments, private and salaried medical practitioners, public hospitals and private patients. There are ample precedents for treating as regulations other determinations or guidelines made by a Minister. For example, section 58C of the Defence Act 1903, as amended in 1979, refers to determinations made by a Minister with relation to remuneration, payment of allowances, other pecuniary benefits, long service leave and other benefits to cadets and members, and members of their families. Section 58C directs that certain sections of the Acts Interpretation Act apply in relation to determinations as if, in those sections, references to regulations were references to determinations and references to a regulation were references to a provision of a determination. Similar scrutiny and disallowance procedures operate for orders under the codes of practice section, in particular section 10 sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978. In this case, the wording is slightly different but the intention and result are the same; that is, to apply parliamentary scrutiny to an order and to provide a mechanism for disallowance if one House of Parliament objects to the orders. Section 10 (2) states: If a notice in relation to an order is not published in the Gazette in accordance with paragraph (1) (a) or a copy of an order is not laid before each House of Parliament in accordance with paragraph (1) (b), this Act has effect as if the order had not been made. Section 10 (3) states: If either House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days after a copy of an order has been laid before that House, passes a resolution disallowing the order either wholly or in so far as it relates to a part of the code or of the variations of a code approved by the order, this Act has effect as if the order had not been made, or as if that part of the code or of the variations of the code had not been approved by the order, as the case requires. A similar provision for disallowance of orders is contained in section 426 (1) of the Navigation Act 1912 and section 17 (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942. In the latter case, the orders and directions which can be made and given by the tribunal cover the following functions: Section 16 (a) to grant, renew, suspend and revoke licences; (b) to authorise transactions in relation to licences under section 89A; (c) to grant approvals and give directions under Divisions 2 and 3 of Part IV in relation to the ownership and control of licences; (d) to determine the standards to be observed by licencees in respect of the broadcasting or televising of programs; (e) to determine the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licencees; (f) to determine the hours during which programs may be broadcast or televised by licencees; (g) to hold inquiries as provided by this Act or as directed by the Minister under section 18, and to publish reports in relation to those inquiries; (h) to assemble information relating to broadcasting and television in Australia under section 106A; and (i) to perform such duties and exercise such powers as are imposed or conferred upon it by this Act and the regulations. At no stage in any of these Acts is reference made to any consultative requirement of the Minister. Nor is it a component of section 12 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 where a plan of management can be disallowed by either House of Parliament. Yet only a foolhardy Minister would contemplate bringing forward orders, determinations, directions, plans of management or guidelines without undertaking some form of consultation with the groups concerned. To do so would invite controversy and the almost certain disallowance by a House of Parliament not in the control of the Government. In essence, then, what this Bill does is ensure that specialists with private patients in a public hospital are not placed in a position which no other group in the community would tolerate. They will no longer be expected to face the prospect of having draconian terms and conditions forced on them or of having their terms and conditions of employment altered by Ministerial decree alone at any time in the future. In addition to removing the present unfettered powers of the Minister the amendment provides for Parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and would ensure that the Minister undertake prior consultation with the profession. In a letter to all major newspapers recently, the Chairman of the Victorian State Committee of the Australian Association of Surgeons had this to say: The basic problems with section 17 are: 1. The federal Minister for Health may, by writing to a doctor, add to or delete from a previous or future agreement between the doctor and his public hospital, and thus destroy the contract. No negotiation is entailed. 2. The Minister is not supervised by the Parliament in acting as in 1. . . . . No self respecting individual or community group can accept such blatant discrimination against their right to understand and negotiate their conditions of work, and in this we feel we are fighting for all ACTU members, other unions and non unionists, as well as ourselves. All other issues are peripheral to this perceived threat to the whole medical profession, and indeed the whole community, if the principle of the present legislation is accepted. One such loss of the right to participate in determining one's work conditions happens to one group in a community democracy itself is under threat. Even nationalisation of an industry should not destroy such a right. Clearly, the amendment to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act put forward in this amendment will satisfy both the 'basic problems' mentioned in that letter. It also satisfies the concerns expressed with regard to the right of an individual or groups to negotiate their conditions of work. The Opposition health spokesman is on record as saying that the current dispute would not have occurred if a similar amendment to this one had been agreed to in September last year. At no stage last year or in the first two months of this year was the need for the repeal of all or any other parts of section 17 of the HIA suggested as a necessary prerequisite to an end to the dispute. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If the passage in 1983 of an amendment to have guidelines treated as regulations would have prevented the dispute occurring in the first place, then its passage in 1984 should be sufficent to resolve it now. I wish the Bill a speedy passage. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.33) —I move: (1) That a Select Committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, be appointed to inquire into and report upon- (a) whether any or all of the tapes and transcripts delivered by The Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984 are authentic and genuine; and (b) whether the conduct of the judge as revealed in the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub-paragraph (a) constituted misbehaviour or incapacity which could amount to sufficient grounds for an address to the Governor-General in Council from both Houses of the Parliament praying for his removal from office pursuant to section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. (2) That the Committee consist of 6 Senators, as follows: (a) three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government; (b) two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That the Committee proceed to the despatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (4) That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. (5) That the Chairman of the Committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy-Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee. (6) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy- Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote. (7) That the quorum of the Committee be three members. (8) That the Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations it may deem fit. (9) That the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources. (10) That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (11) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 31 May 1984. (12) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. On 8 March last I moved in the Senate for the appointment of a Joint Select Committee to consider the same matters that this motion proposes should be examined by a Senate Select Committee. That motion commended itself to the Senate and it was transmitted on that day I think to the House of Representatives. In moving that motion in this chamber on 8 March last I referred to the extensive debates, discussions, questions and answers to questions that had taken place in the Senate over the two weeks leading up to 8 March which I then said and still believe clearly delineated the issues which the proposed Joint Committee and now this Committee should consider. I pointed out in that debate that the Opposition was concerned that this matter should be dealt with in a calm and rational way and outside the considerations of the New South Wales election. Included in the previous motion was the point that the inquiry should not commence until after the polling day of the New South Wales election. In that debate the Opposition was at pains to emphasise that it was important that the material should be authenticated by any such committee, that no findings should be made without proper evidence to support them and that, as I said, the matter should be dealt with in a calm and rational way as befitting the very important considerations which were before the Parliament. As I said, some amendments were made to the motion proposing the appointment of such a committee which were acceptable to me. The resolution of the Senate was conveyed to the House of Representatives. I pointed out also that the Opposition believed that a joint select committee was the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem. It was conceded by both sides of the Senate that this matter was the responsibility of and a major role for both Houses of Parliament. That is why the proposal was for the appointment of a joint select committee. We pointed out, however, that it would be appropriate for the Senate to embark upon an inquiry of that kind on its own but that the most appropriate method of proceeding would be for the appointment of a joint committee. Prior to the House meeting yesterday to consider the Senate's message for the appointment of such a joint committee, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had unfortunately announced that the Government would not accept that proposal but that it would be prepared to participate in a Senate committee if the Senate established such a committee. In accordance with the Prime Minister's views expressed several days ago, when the House of Representatives considered the message from the Senate yesterday it rejected the proposal for the joint committee to which I have referred. We are now confronted with what I believe is a second-best solution to the problem. However, the fact that we are now faced with that situation is the responsibility of the Government and particularly the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went to great pains to denigrate this whole exercise. He made absurd statements about the prostitution of Parliament, abuse of power and so on. So absurd were those propositions that his own Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) conceded in this chamber, albeit somewhat belatedly and perhaps reluctantly, that the ultimate responsibility for the conduct of a judge-whether it constitutes misbehaviour within the Constitution-resides with the Parliament; it does not reside with the Executive. Certainly it does not reside with the public servants and advisers to the Executive such as a Solicitor-General or a Director of Public Prosecutions. It is a responsibility of the role of the Parliament. In the light of that accepted view of Parliament's role and power and responsibility, in the light of the Attorney-General's concessions to that effect-what qualifications he may make upon them is another matter-how the Prime Minister can allege that there is an abuse of power on the part of the Parliament or whatever is really incredible and absurd. It is clear that the Prime Minister has no concept whatever of the status and role of the Parliament. I think the sooner that message is made clear to the public of Australia the better. The proposal for the establishment of the Select Committee is one which I think is made responsibly by the Opposition. We are proposing that the Government should have three of the six members of the Committee and that one of the Government members should be its Chairman. That is in accordance with the traditional composition of Senate committees, whether they be standing committees or select committees, regardless of the state of numbers in the Senate chamber. This is a tradition. One might say that it is becoming almost a convention in this chamber in relation to its committee system, of which we are very proud. I think that the Senate is very rightly proud of the system that has been established. We are not proposing any disturbance whatever of the balance of membership of a committee. As I said, the Committee will have three Government members, two Opposition members and one member of the Australian Democrats. Incidentally, Senator Harradine, who may well be entitled to representation on a committee of this kind, indicated in the previous debate that he would not be available, for reasons he then mentioned, to serve on this Committee. I wish to mention one or two other aspects of the motion I have moved. I refer in particular to the part which states that the Committee may sit in public or in private. That is a general rule that applies to committees, and I think Senate committees have acted very responsibly in exercising that power. Clearly, the Senate is a public forum. Clearly, it is desirable that as far as possible Senate committees sit in public, as does the Senate. Nevertheless, over the years that the committee system has been operating, it has been recognised, rules have been clearly developed and precedents established, that in some cases committees need to sit in private. No doubt there are considerations in this case which will clearly indicate that the Committee should sit in private. That is a matter for the Committee itself to determine. Committees have sufficient responsibility and well established traditions for them to be relied upon to exercise that power in a responsible manner. Another point about my motion that I wish to emphasise is that it provides that the Committee report to the Senate on or before 31 May 1984. That is a very important aspect of my proposal. This issue should not be allowed to lie around any longer. As I said earlier, and as I said on 8 March, the issues have been clearly delineated. It is important now that the Parliament, whose responsibility is now recognised and accepted by everybody apparently except the Prime Minister, should proceed promptly to grasp the problem, come to a conclusion on it and make a public report as soon as possible. It may be that the period allowed of virtually two months will be a very tight one. Circumstances may arise, particularly with regard to proving authenticity of the material or part of it, which cause delays. It may be difficult to meet that deadline but I sincerely hope that the Committee can do so. Of course, we fully appreciate that, if it cannot, it has the power to come back to the Senate and ask for an extension of time. But I cannot overemphasise the need for this matter to be dealt with promptly, efficiently and certainly without any unnecessary delay and, desirably, for the Committee to report within the period of two months that I have emphasised. I have already mentioned the denigration of Parliament by the Prime Minister. I suppose he was directing his views at the Opposition in the comments he made in very general terms about the prostitution of Parliament and so on. But we have had another entirely gratuitous commentator on this exercise-a man who seemed to believe that the Senate would take an interest in him, which I thought was a rather remarkable assumption on his part. I refer to the recently elected Premier of New South Wales who, no doubt in a fit of satisfaction about being re -elected even with a much reduced majority, largely due to the low esteem in which he is held by the New South Wales electorate, decided that he would go public about this exercise in the Senate and called it a kangaroo court. That was a total insult to this chamber by no lesser a person than the President of the Australian Labor Party, two or three days after the Prime Minister had said that the Government would participate in the exercise. The Premier was presumably suggesting that the Labor members who participate in this exercise will be taking part in a kangaroo court. I mention that because I think that clearly the proposal that the Opposition is putting forward is very far removed from any such appellation or criticism. For the reasons I have indicated, the Government is to have the control and the chairmanship of this Committee, which will conduct its inquiry in accordance with the highest traditions of the Senate. Mr Wran, the President of the Australian Labor Party, should be nothing less than ashamed of himself for the comments he made about this institution, this Parliament and the Senate. I am very pleased to see that the Australian newspaper this morning, in a very fine editorial indeed, made that point very clearly and indicated that the Opposition 's proposals are 'sensible and moderate'. It also made the very important point that: The contents of the tapes are such that doubts have been raised in the minds of many people, including impartial observers with no partisan axe to grind, as to the propriety of the behaviour of a member of the highest court in the nation. These are very serious issues indeed. I believe the proposal I am making is consistent with the exercise of a very heavy responsibility of the Parliament, and now of this chamber following the refusal of the House of Representatives and the Government to exercise properly that responsibility and to participate in a committee in the way that we previously proposed. As I have said, this is a second best and it is unfortunate that it has to rest on the Senate. But we should not shirk that responsibility. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.52) —If the Senate votes to establish this Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge, as it appears it now will, it will be setting a profoundly unhappy and very dangerous precedent. That will be the case even if the Committee proves to conduct itself with dignity and restraint; there is a reasonable chance it will, given the proposed composition and chairmanship of it and especially if the procedural principles, which I propose to incorporate by way of an amendment to the motion which will be circulated very shortly, are accepted. The reason it is an unhappy and dangerous precedent that is being set is that Parliament, if it endorses this motion, will be lending its weight and credibility to allegations and material which do not deserve, do not justify and do not demand that kind of attention. In doing so the Parliament will give aid, comfort, nourishment and encouragement to those who practise and who will want to practise in the future the politics of muck and the politics of smear. The material in issue is of a character that simply does not justify this kind of parliamentary exercise. I say that for four reasons-four I hope by now very familiar reasons. The first of those reasons is, of course, that the material is unauthenticated. It may well be, because of its character, incapable of ever being finally authenticated. The material, as I have said but many people still do not seem to appreciate, is of two quite different characters. First of all, it consists of four actual tapes containing a total of 11 conversations, only one of which refers to or involves the judge. As to those tapes, there is at least some capacity to investigate the authenticity of the material and that investigation is proceeding. But I hasten to add that preliminary reports now received by the Government make it very clear indeed that there is reason to be very cautious indeed about accepting this material at its face value. The first detailed preliminary report from the Government's consulting acoustical engineers was received by us a week ago, on 19 March. That detailed eight-page report makes it clear and concludes that there are some examples of editing in the material that has to date been intensively examined by the consulting acoustical engineers. So there is very grave reason to suppose that the authenicity, even of the electronic tapes themselves, is in doubt. Senator Chipp —Will you table that opinion from the experts? Senator GARETH EVANS —No, not at this stage. Senator Chipp —It is a little improper to introduce it into a debate if you are not prepared to back it up before a committee-- Senator GARETH EVANS —It is in the nature of a police investigation, and material which is in support of a police investigation at this stage, and there are all sorts of considerations of public policy that are applicable to police investigations and documents of that kind. I simply make the point that there is , on the evidence now available to the Government, reason to question very seriously the authenticity even of the electronic tapes themselves. So far as the transcripts are concerned, these amount to 524 pages involving just on 3,000 separate conversations, only about a dozen of which actually concern or involve the Federal judge. The authenticity of this material is infinitely more difficult to establish, or even to get to first base, than is the case with the electronic tapes. It would be a very difficult task indeed for any committee which is minded to draw conclusions based on this material to be satisfied about the authenticity of it. It is a very difficult task for the police to satisfy themselves about the authenticity of it, and that is a task upon which they have now been engaged for many weeks. They have been trying to do just that. But the point I make for present purposes is simply this: This material is unauthenticated and may prove to be either without authenticity or, more likely, incapable of ever being fully authenticated, and as such it is material of a very tenuous and very dubious nature on which to be erecting the kind of inquiry that is here proposed. The second point-again this has been made over and over again but it cannot be emphasised too much-is that even if authentic in whole or part the material has manifestly been illegally obtained, unquestionably illegally obtained. The courts of this country, when confronted with evidence illegally obtained, are very, very cautious indeed about drawing any conclusions from such material and, indeed, about allowing it to be admitted in criminal proceedings. It is not the case in this country that such material is automatically excluded, as is the case in some other jurisdications around the world, but it certainly is the case that there are very powerful public interests and public policy considerations, very forcefully acknowledged by the courts, which make it clear that it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that the courts will tolerate the admissibility of this kind of tainted evidence, and it is tainted evidence at best that we have here in issue. I do not believe that sufficient weight has been given by anyone in this whole affair, starting with the Age newspaper and going through to those who, on the other side of the Parliament, have tried so hard to make so much of it. The third point that I advance in support of the proposition that the material here is of a kind that ought not to be dignified by the proposed parliamentary committee is that the material clearly involves a massive invasion of personal privacy. The conversations, to the extent that they are authentic, clearly relate to private behaviour, not public or visible behaviour which can reflect publicly and visibly on the institutions of which the speakers might be members. They involve, to the extent that they are authentic, things said off the record, things said without any consideration or expectation that they will ever get into the public domain. They represent the kind of conversational excursions which any of us might be minded to make and about which any of us might well find ourselves profoundly embarassed were they made public. There has been a degree of sniggering about some of the things that I said on the subject of privacy in my original ministerial statement. But I make no apology for what I said there because I believe it is important-to quote what I said-that people 'be able to blow off steam with loved ones or trusted intimates '. It is important that people 'be able to gossip, or brag, or exaggerate, or fib in the way that every one of us has done from time to time in circumstances which we would be appalled to ever find made public'. I supplement that statement on this occasion with a passage which I have always found profoundly persuasive. I will quote from an article written by Charles Fried in 1968 in the Yale Law Journal, an article I became familiar with when researching and worrying about the whole subject of privacy as an academic some years ago. He was making a very similar point in the passage I now quote: . . . privacy is not just one possible means among others to insure some other value, but that it is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust. Privacy is not merely a good technique for furthering these fundamental relations; rather without privacy they are simply inconceivable. They require a context of privacy or the possibility of privacy for their existence. To make clear the necessity of privacy as a context for respect, love, friendship and trust is to bring out also why a threat to privacy seems to threaten our very integrity as persons. To respect, love, trust or feel affection for others and to regard ourselves as the objects of love, trust and affection is at the heart of our notion of ourselves as persons among persons, and privacy is the necessary atmosphere for these attitudes and actions, as oxygen is for combustion. High flown principles maybe, but not, I believe, exaggerated; nor does the threat to privacy that is contained by the public endorsement of massive privacy invading enterprises of the kind that appear to be involved in these materials, nor does public endorsement of this by this Parliament, reflect anything other, I believe, than an utter failure to appreciate the force of that kind of analysis and comment. The final point I make about the material is this, and again it is a point that I have made and the Government has made over and over again and we cannot repeat too often: At the end of the day, even discounting the unauthenticated character of this material, even discounting the illegality of the material, even discounting the massive invasions of privacy that are involved in giving publicity to this material, there is nothing in the material itself that could sustain any kind of action under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution to remove the judge in question. If the Committee should find otherwise, it will of course be second guessing the Solicitor-General in his legal analysis of what is involved in section 72 of the Constitution, and his conclusion, based on impeccable analysis and precedent, that section 72 is only about criminal misconduct and misbehaviour of a kind which is directly related to the conduct of one's judical office. If the Committee finds otherwise it will not only be second guessing the Solicitor-General but also the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby, QC , who considered both the law and the application of the law to the particular facts of this case. The Committee will also be second guessing the conclusion of the Australian Federal Police who looked at the facts of this case in the context of the application of the criminality criterion and found that there was no foundation whatsoever, even assuming the worst case assumptions about this material, for any conclusion about criminality having been committed. The Government acknowledges-and this is really the only point that Senator Durack seems able to make in this debate-that the application of section 72 is ultimately a matter for the Parliament. There can be no argument about that. But the argument advanced by the Government from day one is that in all the circumstances of this case-in all the circumstances I have just outlined, given all the things that apply about the authenticity, the illegality, the privacy- invading character and the ultimate conclusions that can be derived from this material on the evidence of respected, independent lawyers-Parliament should exercise self-restraint before embarking on a section 72 operation. Senator Durack —Why should we take your word for it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am not asking the Opposition to take my word. I am asking it to take the word of the Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, QC, whom Senator Durack's Government briefed over and over again. I am asking the Opposition to take the word of Mr Ian Temby, QC, a former law partner of Senator Chaney. I am asking it to take the word of the Australian Federal Police and its investigations about the implications in terms of criminality of this material. I am not asking Senator Durack-I would never ask him-to take my word, simply because I know that he is incapable as a person in this place of accepting evidence and reasonable behaviour. But I am asking him to accept the evidence, the testimony, the conclusions of independent lawyers and to do that in the context that what is here involved is not material which is on the public record but material which is unauthenticated, illegal and grossly invasive of personal privacy. That is what I am asking Senator Durack to do, and that is what we have been asking him to do from day one. Any argument by the Opposition on this matter is profoundly reminiscent of the argument that was originally advanced by the Age when it put this material in the public domain. The argument of the Age was that it was not good enough for this material to be given by it to the police for it to be investigated; that it was not good enough for the material to be given to the Attorney-General. The view taken by that newspaper was that it would have to go public and put this material into the public domain. That is an argument which I thought the Age had backed away from a little, but it appears yet again in the editorial in that newspaper this morning, loud and clear. The opinion of that newspaper is that this is what is involved in bringing the material to public notice and it continues: We can speak only for ourselves, and we repeat that our interest, free of any political motive or personal malice, was and still is to prompt further investigation of the disturbing links between organised crime and some prominent people revealed in the tapes and transcripts. I think the Age defence assumes its proper status when one considers the decision of the English Court of Appeal a few days ago in remarkably similar circumstances when someone sought an injunction against the London Daily Mirror against the publication by that newspaper of illegally obtained telephone intercept material supplied to it for financial gain by an individual who was seeking to point to illegalities in the conduct of horse racing in England. The Court of Appeal said this about that enterprise when granting the injunction and forbidding publication in that newpaper of the material: In the instant case, pending a trial, it was impossible to see what public interest would be served by publishing the contents of the tapes which would not equally be served by giving them to the police or to the jockey club. Any wider publication could only serve the interests of the Daily Mirror. That is a refreshing perspective to apply to some of the backyard circumstances of this case, but that kind of rationale which has been employed by the Age is now being employed by Senator Durack and the Opposition. They are saying, and bellowing it in interjections, that it is not good enough simply to rely on the Solicitor-General, the police or Mr Temby. They are saying that one has to go further than that and, in the public interest, ensure that all this stuff is the subject of a parliamentary investigation. I ask the Opposition, as the English Court of Appeal asked the newspaper: Whose interest is here involved? Is it the public interest that is being genuinely pursued by the Opposition in this matter , or is it some squalid, presumed political interest the Opposition has in a possible outcome of this whole enterprise? For the Parliament not to exercise the kind of self-restraint the Government has been arguing for here, for the Parliament to insist on its prerogatives and on the exercise purportedly under section 72 of the Constitution without paying regard to the particular context of this case, for the Parliament to accept, as appears to be the case the Opposition wants to accept, that mere allegations about people's behaviour and associations provide a justification for parliamentary investigation of those allegations with the onus, as it were, transferred to the person the subject of those allegations to prove himself not guilty of the charges made, is to embark on an horrific path which was trodden by the United States in the House Un-American Activities Committee in the late 1940s and a path which reached its nadir in the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his committee in the early 1950s in the United States. The essence of what has come to be known as McCarthyism is public accusations, especially accusations made under the cover of privilege and the investigation in a public sphere of those accusations based on slight, doubtful or irrelevant evidence. The essence of McCarthyism is the ascription of guilt by association. That is the very phenomenon one is seeing at work here. The spectre of McCarthyism is very much with us in this affair, and it is desperately important that this Parliament, this Senate, does not succumb to that course. The amendment which I have had circulated is designed to ensure, so far as it is possible to ensure in the sordid and squalid context of this particular case, that Parliament, the Senate, does not succumb to McCarthyist techniques. The circulation of this amendment must not be seen as in any way a concession by the Government to the legitimacy of this proposed Senate committee of inquiry. It is simply an acknowledgment of what we all know to be the political reality that such an inquiry will be set up and it reflects a desire on the part of the Government to ensure that, if an inquiry is being set up, at least there is some chance that it will be conducted with a semblance of dignity, fairness and respect for the privacy of individuals and the confidentiality of personal behaviour. The amendment is in three parts. The first part seeks to add the words 'and relating to the conduct of a Federal judge' to paragraph (1) (a) of the terms of reference, which reads in its original form: whether any or all of the tapes and transcripts delivered by the Age newspaper to the Attorney-General on 1 February 1984 are authentic and genuine What is proposed is simply a precaution to ensure that in investigating authenticity the Committee, if it is established, confines itself to the authenticity of the tapes and transcripts as they bear upon the alleged conduct of the Federal judge, rather than being a vehicle or an opportunity for the Committee to roam at large around the whole 500-odd pages of other transcripts and the whole 2,900-odd other conversations. The second part of the amendment draws a link-a link which does not presently exist-between sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (1) of the terms of reference. At the moment sub-paragraph (a) has regard to the authenticity question. Sub-paragraph (b) requires the Committee to have regard to whether or not misbehaviour may have occurred, but draws no linkage between them. The Government believes that there must be a linkage between them, and that it would be quite wrong of the Committee to embark on any investigation of alleged misbehaviour by the judge without being satisfied, at least as to part, as to the authenticity of the tapes and transcripts in question. Accordingly, the second part of the Government's amendment proposes to insert at the commencement of paragraph (1) (b) the following words: If the Committee is satisfied that the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub- paragraph (a) are authentic and genuine in whole or part, Then the amendment provides that the Committee in those circumstances can look at the misbehaviour question arising possibly under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. The third part of the amendment is self-explanatory, or will be so when I read it out. This is the proposed insertion of a new paragraph between the existing paragraphs (8) and (9) in the terms of Senator Durack's motion, a motion which deals primarily with simple machinery and mechanical matters. It is proposed to insert a paragraph as follows: 8A. That the Committee act in accordance with the following principles: (a) that it at all times take care to protect, so far as it is possible to do so , the privacy, confidentiality, rights and reputations of individuals, whether appearing as witnesses before the Committee or otherwise; (b) that it summon witnesses to appear personally only when satisfied that the circumstances demand it, that, so far as is possible, witnesses be given notice of the matters proposed to be dealt with, and that witnesses be given an opportunity to reply in writing before appearing to give evidence, and be entitled to be assisted by counsel; (c) that it give specific consideration in the case of each proposed witness to the desirability of hearing evidence in private session, and that each witness be given an opportunity to apply for any or all of his or her evidence to be given in private; and (d) that it ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, so far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. I repeat that there is no question of the Government in any way conceding the validity of this parliamentary committee enterprise by moving in the way that I have just proposed for the addition of certain qualifications and modifications of Senator Durack's motion and certain guarantees as to the principles by which that Committee shall operate. To do so is simply to endeavour to ensure that if this Committee is established over our strenuous opposition it has a chance of behaving in a reasonably fair and dignified way. The bottom line of our position remains this: Any inquiry of this kind, however conducted, cannot occur without people being hurt. I believe, in the circumstances of this case, that they would be quite unjustifiably hurt. Any inquiry of this kind, however conducted, cannot occur without the institution of the judiciary in this country being put at risk. I believe that in the circumstances of this particular case it would be unjustifiably and indefensibly put at risk. I conclude by repeating what I said on 8 March in this place as part of the debate we then had on the establishment of a joint standing committee. I use similar words, because I do not think I can say it now any differently, any more strongly, or any better. So far from asserting the invincibility of parliamentary sovereignty, so far from improving the quality of parliamentary democracy, the embarking on this sort of enterprise, the establishing of this kind of parliamentary committee, is to write a game plan for the ultimate destruction of democratic and libertarian values in this country. The Government urges that the Opposition and the Australian Democrats think again before taking us down that path. I seek leave to move the amendments together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) Sub-paragraph (1) (a), after ''1 February 1984'', insert ''and relating to the conduct of a Federal judge''. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) (b), at beginning of paragraph, insert: ''if the Committee is satisfied that the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub-paragraph (a) are authentic and genuine in whole or part,''. (3) After paragraph 8, insert the following new paragraph: 8A. That the Committee act in accordance with the following principles: (a) that it at all times take care to protect, so far as it is possible to do so, the privacy, confidentiality, rights and reputations of individuals, whether appearing as witnesses before the Committee or otherwise; (b) that it summon witnesses to appear personally only when satisfied that the circumstances demand it, that, so far as is possible, witnesses be given notice of the matters proposed to be dealt with, and that witnesses be given an opportunity to reply in writing before appearing to give evidence, and be entitled to be assisted by counsel; (c) that it give specific consideration in the case of each proposed witness to the desirability of hearing evidence in private session, and that each witness be given an opportunity to apply for any or all of his or her evidence to be given in private; and (d) that it ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, so far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(11.18) —I believe that the Senate has heard two fine speeches from Senators Durack and Gareth Evans on this very difficult question of the Age tapes. The speeches, of course, have been at variance and listeners to the debate can draw their own conclusions as to whether those positions have been taken because of political persuasions or whether they are objective opinions. I believe that both speeches were motivated by genuine beliefs in what should be done with this affair. The Australian Democrats have regarded the matter as serious right from the beginning. It is a vexed matter, a nasty matter, a matter which I think all of us would have preferred had never arisen. The fact that it has arisen means that it has to be settled. I was impressed by that section of Senator Gareth Evans's speech which said that we are now setting a dangerous precedent. My goodness, we are; let not Senator Evans think that members of the Opposition do not recognise that. We are establishing an extraordinarily dangerous precedent. I do not know whether a parliamentary committee has ever before inquired into the conduct of a Federal judge. I do not think it has. It is a very serious matter and the implications that can be drawn from some of the material do not make it a light-hearted affair. Let us face it; let us grasp the nettle. The Senate in the first instance is acting on behalf of the Parliament to determine whether under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution a very senior judge in the Federal jurisdiction has misbehaved and whether he should therefore be dismissed. If people think that anybody wants to play politics with a question like that, they ought to think again. It would be only a very brave or stupid person who would play party politics with a suggestion like that. I have enough confidence in the Senate committee system to be absolutely persuaded at this stage, even before the personnel of that committee are appointed, that every person on that committee will behave responsibly and will not go on witch hunts or engage in party politics. I state that categorically to people listening to this debate. That is the way in which the Senate committee system in this place operates. It is something of which we should all be proud. I am sure there is nothing to indicate that this exercise will dim that image. We agree with Senator Evans that we would be setting a dangerous precedent, but what does the Attorney suggest in its place? With great respect to him, what he is saying is: 'Let's do nothing'. He says-I respect his opinion-that in his view the tapes do not deserve or demand examination. Senator Gareth Evans —So far as the judge is concerned. Senator CHIPP —Without pre-judging the issue, I have an opinion that is different from that of Senator Evans. I am certainly not playing party politics in this. Party politics will not be played by us. But let Senator Evans agree that if the conversations between certain individuals on the tapes and transcripts alleged to have taken place did take place-let us assume for a moment that everything on those tapes and transcripts is authentic and genuine; I am not saying it is, but let us assume it is-then prima facie that is enough information to put a question mark against prominent people in this country of a nature that would demand examination and a clearing of the air. Senator Gareth Evans is certainly more knowledgeable of the law than I. He may well be more intelligent than I, but one thing that I have over him is that I have been in this business longer than he has. Without doing the old soldier act on him, let me say that I believe that this is one issue that will not just go away. There is no way it will just disappear down the track. What Senator Gareth Evans, the Attorney-General, forgets, temporarily, I think in his innocence, is that there will be a Federal election this year. Does the Attorney really believe that an issue like this will go away? Does that mean he is prepared, if he has thought it through, for a massive cloud to hang over a senior judge of this country for that length of time? Does he believe that that massive cloud should also hang over a senior Federal court in this country for the next eight or nine months? Does he believe that it is proper in a democracy which operates under the rule of law that all judgments from that senior court with which that judge might be associated should remain clouded for the rest of the year? I am not even talking about the likelihood or otherwise of the guilt or innocence of the judge. I am saying that the cloud is there. Will it go away because the Attorney-General has summoned and obtained legal opinions from highly respected lawyers? Clearly, the cloud has not gone away and those respected opinions have been on the table of this chamber for the last month or more. Senator Missen —And heavily criticised. Senator CHIPP —That is another aspect. The position has been worsened since the publication by the Age of the transcripts and the debate in this place because there have been some conspicuous cowards, not in this chamber, who, under the privilege of Parliament have named certain people. These despicable people under the privilege of Parliament have named the people appearing in the tapes. I have nothing but the lowest contempt for politicans who do that sort of thing. I should like to turn to one aspect that has not been yet mentioned in this debate. I want to talk about the judge concerned. What is his position? He has been compromised in a most terrible way. Whether the tapes are authentic or not or genuine or not, that judge is now in a state of compromise. If the Attorney- General was fair I think he would acknowledge the thrust of that remark. The judge will continue under a condition of compromise until he has had an opportunity of clearing his name. He will be compromised until his name and reputation are cleared. I raise a point which has not been raised yet. What has happened to that old Australian saying: 'Give a fellow a fair go'? Has the judge been given a fair go? Of course he has not. He has been named, he has been demeaned, he has been persecuted, he has been tried by innuendo by cowards under parliamentary privilege, by sniggers by questions by disreptuable people to Ministers, et cetera. Senator Gareth Evans —What about that other old Australian saying: 'Get off his back'? Senator CHIPP —If the Attorney has another formula for getting people off his back let him put it forward in this chamber. He did not put it forward in his speech five minutes ago. All he said was: 'Let's do nothing about it in this chamber and the issue will go away'. That is political innocence of a kind that borders on being naive. It just will not go away, nor will this judge have an opportunity of clearing himself. What can he do? Can he get up on the Bench on which he sits and say that this is a pack of rubbish? Of course he cannot. Can he go through that rather quaint method that was suggested at the weekend by a journalist of being tried by his peers on the same Bench? That is totally absurd . I wish we could find an easy solution. The Attorney is wrong if he thinks that simply by producing a couple of legal opinions in here the thing will go away. I certainly have not been in the position the Attorney has been in of being able to speak to the judge since the affair began. However, I would not be at all surprised that the judge would welcome this kind of inquiry. Certainly, if I had nothing to hide I would welcome an inquiry like this. The inquiry will protect the judge's position. Potential members of the Committee already have in mind that there will be no unnecessary embarrassment of the judge. We have now received from the Attorney a totally unnecessary admonition in his amendment to the motion that Committee members must behave well and in a gentlemanly fashion. I do not know why there is so much to fear about the appointment of this Committee. Although I have complimented the Attorney on his speech, I cannot reconcile one aspect of what he said. On the one hand, he said this morning-I took the words down-'that there is no argument about that' when referring to the fact that Parliament and Parliament alone has to be the judge of whether a judge has misbehaved under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. The Attorney has made that clear on several occasions. If Parliament and only Parliament has the power, surely Parliament has to be in a position to make an assessment as to whether there has been misbehaviour under section 72 (ii). As far as I am concerned, leaving all party politics aside, as a member of parliament I am just not prepared, without having heard the tapes or having gone into the matter and hearing evidence, to accept the word of two lawyers. Senator Gareth Evans —I bet you would be if the judge's name had been Bill Smith . Fair comment? Senator CHIPP —I acknowledge the interjection of the Attorney-General so that it will be recorded in Hansard for the sole purpose of enabling readers of Hansard to judge how contemptible that interjection was. I make no other reference to it . How do we proceed if Parliament is going to be the judge? Nobody would deny the total absurdity of 189 members of Parliament-all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate-gathering in some chamber to conduct an inquiry, hear evidence and make a judgment. That really is cuckoo land, and nobody has suggested that. If we proceed from the Attorney's acknowledged position that only Parliament can make the decision, I think logically we go to a fact-finding group of the Parliament to go into what has been alleged, the evidence, the explanations, and the replies of the people who have been maligned. Hopefully, a lot of the evidence will be taken in camera so that innocent reputations are not damaged. This all-party group could report back to the Parliament. My only fear in this exercise is that once the Committee has reported, and on the assumption that it does clear the people named, the politicking will not then cease. I am not worried about the Committee because I believe it will conduct itself with propriety and dignity. But let us assume that a sizeable majority of the Committee comes down with the finding that there is no offence and no misbehaviour under section 72 (ii). I hope that that would be the end of it. I hope that the Parliament would then regard the Committee as the honest broker, as the umpire, if it comes down with that sort of decision. That is the big question which, of course, we cannot answer until the Committee brings down its report. Let us look at the accusations that the Liberal Party has engaged in a kangaro court, a witch hunt or whatever. I do not think that can be sustained. It is not my business to defend the Liberal Party. It can defend itself far better than I can. But I believe the Liberal Party has shown a great deal of bona fides in the way in which it has suggested this Committee might be constituted. An Opposition majority has not been proposed for the Committee. In fact, the Liberal Party, without reference to the Australian Democrats- I commend it for this-proposed that the Government have a majority on the Committee. It proposed that the Australian Labor Party have the majority and that there be a Labor Party Chairman. I believe that that act in itself makes the argument that this is a political witch hunt fall to the ground immediately. Of course, the Australian Democrats totally support such a proposal. The Attorney-General has made four points, four very good points. He has made the point that the tapes are unauthenticated. I remind him that when the original motion was moved for a joint committee of both Houses it was the Democrats who moved an amendment that the first task of the Committee should be to examine the genuineness or authenticity of the tapes. I concur with his concern that the tapes are authenticated. He has now moved another amendment with which we concur and which we will support, that is the insertion of the words 'if the Committee is satisfied that the tapes and transcripts referred to in sub-paragraph (a) are authentic and genuine in whole or part'. I think there is something to be commended in that amendment because it will stop the Committee, as Senator Evans said, from roaming at large over 500-odd pages of transcript, some of which is not backed up by tapes. Then the Attorney-General said that if the tapes are authentic they were illegally obtained. I find some irrelevance in the fact that they were illegally obtained. Whether a tape is obtained legally or illegally, it is still a massive invasion of privacy. The material is no different. No doubt there are miles of tape in the Australian Federal Police headquarters which have been legally obtained. They are still massive invasions of privacy. I share the Attorney- General's concern and Senator Durack's concern that the unfortunate part of taped conservations is that innocent names are mentioned on them. As I have said before in the Federal Police archives there would be miles of tape and pages of transcripts of conversations legally obtained on warrants properly made out. I am quite sure that my name and the name of every prominent member of parliament is mentioned. One of the idiosyncrasies of criminals on a phone is to big note themselves. They say: 'Oh, so and so. Yes I have got him under control. I paid him 10 grand last year. He's on our side'. I think we ought to pause and imagine the effect on such a person if that sort of tape, legally obtained, were tabled in this place or printed in the Age newspaper. We are talking about very serious stuff. I feel that we are about to go into a new era. I will divert for a moment to illustrate the point. I was at a football match the other day and a fellow came up out of the crowd with a camera, took my photograph and walked away. Not a word was spoken. It was not a terribly exciting football match. It was in Adelaide and there was a difference of about 20 goals in the score. I reflected and thought what a massive invasion of privacy it is for anybody to have his photograph taken without first his permission being sought. It is almost like having fingerprints taken. In some aspects it is worse. It is an invasion of privacy which we have allowed to occur and which has occurred by default. That is why this matter is so serious. By default we may well get into a situation where any telephone conversation can be taped and reproduced. Let me assure the Attorney-General that I am not one of those people who sniggered at the remark he made about what people say over a telephone in private. I will confess that I have had many conversations with friends, my wife and children over a telephone that, when looked at in naked print, would seem quite different from the way in which they were intended. I share the Attorney's concern on that matter. We will support his amendment and I understand the Opposition will also support it. The Attorney-General wants inserted into Senator Durack's motion four guiding principles. They are: First, that at all times the Committee take care to protect as far as possible the privacy, confidentiality, rights and reputations of individuals et cetera; secondly, that it summon witnesses to appear personally only when satisfied that circumstances demand it et cetera; thirdly, that it give specific consideration in the case of each proposed witness to the desirability of hearing evidence in private et cetera; and, fourthly, that it ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest. Those four things are almost like saying that we love motherhood and hate sin or the reverse, whichever happens to be one's persuasion . I was a little offended as a member of the Senate and a possible member of the Committee to be told by the Government how we have to behave. All senators have behaved like that since time began. That is why they have such a high reputation . Then I saw the wisdom of the Attorney-General's amendment for the reason that this Committee establishes a precededent- Senator Gareth Evans —It is not just any old Senate committee, is it? Senator CHIPP —It is not just any old Senate committee, it is a Senate committee inquiring into the behaviour of a Federal judge. For that reason the Democrats, and I understand the Opposition also, will support this amendment. I have not seen the Attorney-General's latest draft. I hope he has incorporated the three amendments suggested by the Democrats, namely the insertion in paragraph 3(b) of the words 'so far as possible', the deletion of the word 'full' and the insertion in paragraph 3(d) also of the words 'so far as possible'. I and the Democrats support the establishment of this Committee with some reluctance in the wish and the hope that it will enable the judge to clear his name and remove the cloud that hangs over the Bench on which he sits. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(11.42) —The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Durack to establish a select committee to be known as the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. To that motion the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) has moved some amendments. Today the Attorney-General has finally and openly conceded that with section 72 of the Constitution ultimately rests the responsibility for consideration of the conduct of a judge in the Houses of the Parliament. Senator Gareth Evans —I have acknowledged that since day one. Senator LEWIS —The Attorney-General interjects that he has acknowledged that since day one. With respect to the Attorney-General, he may have in some way or other believed that he was acknowledging it but the truth of the matter is that he has endeavoured to circumvent the responsibility of the Parliament in this matter. Section 72 of the Constitution provides that no judge appointed by the Federal Parliament shall be removed except, firstly, by the Governor-General in Council on an address from both Houses of Parliament praying for such removal. Clearly, for the Parliament even to consider moving such a prayer it must be in a position to consider the conduct of a judge. The Attorney-General has said to the Parliament: 'Look, don't you worry about the evidence. I have had Mr Temby, QC, and Mr Griffith, QC, examine the evidence, including the tapes, and they say there is nothing for you to worry about'. Senator Gareth Evans —I did not say that Griffith examined the evidence. Senator LEWIS —Again Senator Evans interjects to me that he did not say that Mr Griffith considered the evidence. Senator Gareth Evans —I said he considered the law and Temby considered the law and the tapes. Senator LEWIS —Again, I respond so that the interjection is written into Hansard . Those who get the opportunity to read Hansard and read what Senator Evans said as recently as this morning will see that he said that the Senate could rely on Mr Griffith and Mr Temby, who had considered the tapes, and he told the Senate, in effect, that there was nothing for the Senate to concern itself about. No senator would accept such a simple proposition. That is why we are currently considering this motion. The Attorney-General could have solved this problem a long time ago. He could have had these tapes and transcripts very heavily edited , could have provided them to the Parliament and then said to the Parliament: ' Here is the so-called evidence; this is what you are supposed to be concerning yourselves with; here are the opinions of Mr Griffith and Mr Temby and on the basis of those opinions I suggest that the evidence does not require you to act under section 72'. No doubt the Senate would then have debated the matter and then laid it aside. It would have been put to rest, and that would have happened weeks ago. I suggest that is one manner in which the Attorney-General could have resolved this problem. I am sure that, with his imagination, he could have discovered other ways but whatever he decided, clearly the responsibility ultimately would have come back to the 64 individual senators in this place to make up their minds on the basis of the evidence presented to them-whatever that evidence was-as to what they should do. Instead, the Attorney-General circumvented the obligations of Parliament-not the rights of Parliament but its obligations-to make a decision in this matter. That is why we are considering this motion today. I believe, as does Senator Chipp, that the Attorney-General's reference to a kangaroo court is, frankly, an insult to this Parliament, and for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to talk about the Opposition prostituting the Parliament and abusing the power of the Parliament is an absolute insult. Senator Evans's protest today that he appears to be the only person in this Parliament who is concerned about Senate committees adopting McCarthyist tactics is an absolute nonsense because all sorts of people on both sides of the Parliament have spoken very strongly of their concerns about Senate committees' powers and the operation of those powers. As Senator Chipp indicated earlier today, every time Senate committees have acted in these areas they have acted properly and responsibly. In fact, I suggest to the Senate that this Committee will be on trial because all of us will be watching to see how it behaves. The public, the media and judges around the land will also be observing to see how this Senate Committee behaves. In effect, it will be on trial. It will be able to use the full range of its powers provided under the Standing Orders to ensure the protection of the people who come before it and to ensure in particular that this judge is given an opportunity to defend himself from the charges which have been nefariously made. It does seem to me that it is a bit of an insult for the Attorney to say to this Senate Committee that it must act in particular ways although I have no objection to any of the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General as to the conduct of the Committee. It seems to me, as Senator Chipp indicated, that they are just the principles that a Senate committee would adopt but I have for some time been pressing in various ways to have the Standing Orders incorporate protections for witnesses who appear before Senate committees. So certainly I will not have any objection to these proposals. For the Attorney-General to talk about a squalid and sordid committee is not only an insult to the Senate and to every honourable senator but also in particular is a grave insult to his own colleagues who will form the majority on that Committee. The proposal we have made will leave the Government in control of the Committee. I see that Senator Tate is in the chamber. As he is Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, I anticipate that he will be on this committee and probably will be its chairman. The Attorney-General's statement about the Committee being squalid and sordid is an absolute insult to his colleague from Tasmania, as well as to the other members of the Committee. As I say, the Attorney-General would have us believe that he is the only person concerned about McCarthyism. I can assure him that that is not right. Some of his colleagues are concerned about McCarthyist tactics on committees, although that was not particularly evident when we were in government. I draw attention to the editorial in the Australian today in which the editor, having applied his mind to this inquiry and realising that the Opposition's proposals are to put the Government in control of the committee, said in effect that the charge of it being a kangaroo court falls by the wayside. Clearly this Committee will be able to act secretly if it wishes, to hear its evidence in camera or publicly as it sees fit and no doubt from time to time it will determine in accordance with the rights and privileges of the people of the nation and not in accordance with any sort of McCarthyist tactics or kangaroo court proposals. Senator Chipp —Or any witness can express a wish to appear privately or publicly . Senator LEWIS —I accept Senator Chipp's interjection that any witness who wishes to appear before this Committee in private could no doubt ask it to hear his evidence in camera. I am sure the Committee would give that request the utmost consideration. I hope the Committee ultimately will provide the Senate with some explanation of the evidence, if there is any evidence, about the conduct of this judge-an explanation which will enable the Senate to determine whether it wishes to act or does not wish to act. I agree with another point raised by Senator Chipp in that, whatever the result of the Committee's investigation, this matter is a highly political one. What else is in the tapes is a highly political question. I have not heard the tapes or read the transcripts or copies of them reproduced in the Melbourne Age newspaper, or any of the copies which I understand journalists in this place have by the dozen. I have deliberately not done that in order to ensure that at the time I am required under the Constitution to consider this conduct I will not have been prejudiced by irrelevancies and opinions expressed by journalists. I am sure honourable senators will give the report of this Committee due consideration and make up their own minds as to whether or not any action needs to be taken. I support the motion. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(11.55) —I do not wish to delay the Senate on this matter. However, I wish to put the Government's view and my view about the exercise. The Senate is well aware that the motion moved by Senator Durack for the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge will be opposed by the Government. However, because of the numbers in this place, the Government is aware that the motion will succeed. It was to that purpose that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) moved the amendments which, I am pleased to say, have been accepted by both sides of the Senate. The Committee having been established, we will provide members and serve on that Committee, as we should under the circumstances. However, that does not detract from the fact that we do not like this Committee being established at all. It is about that matter that I would like to speak. The first thing I want to point out in reply to Senator Lewis is that in the normal cut and thrust of debate in this place it is not unknown for honourable senators on both sides of the House to misrepresent what others have said. Senator Lewis, in condemnation of the Attorney-General, claimed that the Attorney-General had described the Committee and its members as being part of some squalid political exercise. That is not at all fair. The Attorney-General described the process of establishing this Committee as being like a squalid political exercise. There is a difference which Senator Chaney may not realise but I am sure I do. Senator Chipp said, quite correctly, that in taking this course we are entering a new era, that we are setting a precedent. That is right. The first question is : Should we be doing it? In justification of that Senator Lewis said, quite correctly, that ultimately the judgment of the conduct of a judge under section 72 of the Constitution is a matter for the Parliament. I accept that, but it is a very long step in logic from the acceptance of that principle to suggest that whenever an accusation of improper conduct is made-I will come to the accusations in a moment-the Senate automatically should set up a committee or investigate the matter in the way it is investigating this matter. I remind the Senate about how this whole episode started. Allegedly, telephone conversations between the judge and another person were taped. On the admission of everyone in this place they were taped illegally. Those tapes were then selectively taken and distributed widely thoughtout this community-to the Press, to politicians and, apparently, to almost anyone who wanted them. Sections of other alleged telephone taps were transcribed and distributed widely throughout the community. We have no proof that the tapes were accurate, we have no proof that they were not tampered with and we know that they were manifestly illegal. What the entering of this new era and the setting of this precedent means is that this could happen to almost anyone in the community. I suppose the people who are most susceptible to being treated in this way and having this done to them are politicians, the members of both Houses of this Parliament. It seems that it means that, in the future, people can illegally tap telephones of other conversations between politicians and between politicians and others in this place. These tapes could then be produced and widely distributed and from that distribution certain accusations could be made. The person against whom these accusations were being made could then be on trial in this chamber. I suggest to honourable senators that that is a very serious step to take. Senator Gareth Evans made some comments about the political nature of the process of establishing this Committee. We have been subjected, in this place and in another place, to a series of questions at Question Time. Senator Evans, in particular, has been subjected to a series of questions in this place. It is the right of honourable senators to ask those questions. The whole aim of the exercise, it seems to us, was to discredit the judge concerned. Senator Evans asked senior law officers in this country, respected people, for their views on the tapes and on the law involved. Those people gave their views. One of those people, Mr Temby, was subjected indirectly to a political attack in this place. One honourable senator got up and cast reflections on him because at one time, apparently, he had been a candidate for election to Parliament for the Australian Labor Party. Another honourable senator interjected that what we were about and what they were about was protecting our mate, the judge. During a censure debate in this place all sorts of accusations were made about the conduct of the Attorney-General and about the conduct of these two senior law officers. This whole issue has been bandied around in the media, the Parliament, et cetera, without any concrete evidence at all being produced about the misconduct of the judge. As a result we are now setting up a Senate select committee which will be guided by a set of principles which we all accept and which we hope all Senate committees will always follow when they conduct their inquiries. The Committee will be able to sit in camera. Witnesses will be able to request to be heard in camera. The Committee will apparently make a judgment on the conduct of a judge on the basis of evidence which has been illegally obtained and it will try to make decisions on the authenticity of the tapes, I suppose as a result of technical evidence and as a result of asking questions of various witnesses, all on the basis of a sordid and squalid little affair whereby a newspaper in this country published tapes which other newspapers refused to publish and which it got wrong to the detriment of the judge concerned. I ask honourable senators to consider seriously, as I believe many of them have , whether we should be proceeding down this line. If we set this precedent and if we enter this new era, as Senator Chipp described it, God knows where it will all end. Heaven knows how many of us will be subjected to this sort of treatment by people who have an axe to grind in another area. However, as the Liberal- National parties and the Australian Democrats seem to be determined to establish this Committee, I am glad that they will accept the amendments moved by Senator Evans. I am glad that they will accept-and I hope they will follow-the proviso that they will make judgments of the type that they are apparently setting themselves up to make only if they are satisfied that the tapes and transcripts are authentic and genuine in whole or in part. So at least, I hope, we will have that sort of protection. However, members of the Government and I are not concerned only about the immediate case. We are concerned about the establishment of a principle whereby, on the flimsiest of evidence, we are setting up a committee to sit in judgment on a senior judicial person in this country and that we are setting up this committee following pressure from outside this parliament through the media on such flimsy evidence. I think it is a dangerous step to take. In fact, I do not believe we should take that step. The only advantage of establishing the Committee will be that perhaps some of the sordid comments which were made by honourable senators opposite in the debate a fortnight ago may cease while the Committee is operating. Although a precedent has been set, I hope that during the sittings of this Committee and after it has finished its deliberations we will think again before we take such a step in the future. As I say, heaven knows where it will end or who will be involved. I do not think that it will do this Parliament any credit. It will certainly not make any advance to civil liberties in this country. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(12.06) —The Senate has been debating in broad terms a motion which I moved to establish a Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge. The debate quite specifically related to conversations that are alleged to have taken place as revealed in what have become known as the Age tapes, certain portions of which were published in the Age newspaper in early February. It is now clear from material that has been provided to the Senate by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the course of the debate that the transcripts range over 520-odd pages. There are tapes which were not originally transcribed. Presumably transcriptions have now been made of those tapes. I do not know the number of pages involved. In any event, there is a considerable mass of material. Some of that material concerns only the conduct of a judge. The Committee would be required to establish whether that material is authentic, either in whole or in part and, if so, whether that conduct would be such as to amount to grounds of removal of the judge under section 72 (ii) of the Constitution. The Government, although opposing the proposal itself, has moved some amendments to my motion. I say immediately that the Opposition will agree to those amendments which are of three kinds. The first two really tidy up the drafting of the terms of reference to give a more firm meaning to them. Certainly, the amendment only gives effect to the intention of the terms of reference contained in my motion. The third amendment proposed by the Government adds a new and extensive paragraph to the motion and lays down that the Committee will act in accordance with a number of principles. I do not propose to go through those principles in detail; suffice it to say that the Opposition will agree to the proposed amendment. However, I feel bound to say that I regard the amendment proposed by the Government as unnecessary. I believe it is somewhat of an insult not only to this Committee and the people who might be on it but also to the committee system as it has developed. The considerations that are set out in the so-called principles are ones which I believe Senate committees, faced with problems of this kind, have in the past and will in the future, particularly in this case, observe. It may be that principles of this kind will become common form principles for Senate committees . I am only prepared to accept them in the light that they will be accepted as common form principles. In agreeing to the Government's amendments, I do not for one minute concede that this Senate Committee or any Senate committee would act in any way contrary to those principles. I find it a bit surprising. Perhaps it is due to Senator Evans's substantial inexperience in sitting on these sorts of Senate committees. I know that he has been a member of other Senate committees, but it does surprise me that he should be so ignorant of the way in which Senate committees have operated in the past and the way in which this Committee clearly will proceed. I emphasise that the Committee will have a majority of Government senators and will be chaired by a Government senator. I now turn to some of the major issues in this debate. The Attorney-General and his colleague the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) reiterated the objections they have to this Committee and the objections they have had to this Parliament even debating the subject. Senator Evans now says that he has always conceded the role of Parliament in this matter. I accept his word that he has always done that. All I can say is that he gave a pretty good imitation of not accepting that when he first made his statement on this matter to the Senate. Certainly, from the very beginning he took the attitude that the Parliament should not really buy into this subject at all. He believed that by making a statement and tabling an opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, and the Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith, elaborated by all his own rhetoric about privacy, the Constitutional position of the judiciary and the separation of powers, that should have been the beginning and the end of the matter. That was, quite rightly, totally unacceptable to this chamber. I believe that attitude is unacceptable to the people of Australia who expect their Parliament to exercise its responsibilities and not be fobbed off, as I have said, by the Attorney-General who on previous occasions sought to heavy this chamber by that approach. We have been over all these issues. I do not think I need detain the Senate very much longer concerning the arguments, but I do want to reiterate some of the answers to the arguments that the Government is using because I am quite sure that the Government will continue to use them in the public arena. I have already dealt with Mr Wran, the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party. He has referred to this Committee as being a kangaroo court. That was a most unjustifiable accusation in the light of the way this Committee is to be structured. From the word go the Opposition wanted to establish a joint committee of members of both this chamber and the House of Representatives. Senator Chipp —Why do you think Mr Wran thought he might be called before it? Senator DURACK —That is a very interesting point. The other extraordinary and deplorable aspect of Mr Wran's statement was that the people who made these tapes should be gaoled. That has nothing to do with a Premier; it is for a court to decide. It seemed to me that Mr Wran's view was that the tapes were authentic or were substantially authentic. Senator McIntosh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. We were closing the debate. Senator Durack is opening up new subject matter which has nothing to do with closing the debate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Durack is responding to an interjection from Senator Chipp. Senator DURACK —I do not propose to pursue that subject in any depth. I simply conclude by saying that Mr Wran was giving authenticity to the material by what he was saying. He also expressed a very strange concern about what role he may have in the Committee's considerations. I do not know why he would think that he might be called by the Committee. Nobody has ever suggested that he would be called by the Committee, but that seemed to be a very touchy subject for him. It has been a very touchy subject for the Attorney-General and for other people. I do not understand why they are all so touchy about it. Perhaps all will be revealed at a later date. Of course, the other two matters the Government has been and keeps emphasising are that this material has been obtained illegally and that this represents a gross breach of privacy. As to illegality, the Opposition has said at all times in this debate that those who have committed breaches of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act, and it seems obvious that there have been such breaches, should be charged if they can be identified and if evidence is available. Then it is a matter for the courts to decide what should be done about them. The mere fact that material has been obtained illegally is no reason , on basic common law principles, why that material should not be examined for content. As Senator Chipp has said, this issue will not go away. It is totally unrealistic for the Government ever to believe that it will go away simply because the material may have been obtained illegally. That has never been a principle of common law. It was recently reaffirmed in the High Court of Australia in the case of Bunning v. Cross that merely because material has been obtained illegally does not mean that it cannot be used for certain purposes of investigation, and indeed in some cases proof in court. The statute in this case may prevent this material being used in a court, I concede that; but there is no basic reason in the principles of English law, of common law, of our law, why merely because material has been obtained illegally it cannot be used for its content. It has been said over and again, not only here but in the public debate, that the material in this issue is very important and raises very serious questions relating not only to the judge but also to many other aspects of criminal law enforcement in this country. The Attorney-General has conceded from the word go that the contents should be investigated. In fact, he got very upset when he thought that Senator Chipp and I were suggesting that he would not look at the contents of the tapes; there was a misunderstanding at that time. He was at great pains to say that the contents would be investigated even though they may have been obtained illegally. There is no substance in that argument. The other argument is that relating to privacy. Senator Chipp made a very important contribution when he said that, whether material is illegally or legally obtained, there is still an issue of privacy. The issue of privacy has to be weighed against other considerations. Certainly, as far as possible the Senate Committee should protect the privacy of people, and I am sure it will. Surely the last word on the subject of privacy, at least in this debate, must be that of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). This was quoted by my colleague Senator Hamer in debate in this chamber on 8 March, but I will quote it again. Back in 1972 on a Mike Willesee show, the present Prime Minister, when he had used material that had been obtained not by telephone interception but probably in breach of a State listening devices Act, admitted that it was obtained without the knowledge of the person who was a party to the conversation. He used this material, in gross invasion of the man's privacy, to belabour the man and his company and so on in relation to a dispute that was upsetting Mr Hawke. The interview makes very interesting reading. The Prime Minister went on like a two- bob watch in this interview back in 1972, in the same way he does when he answers questions in the House. He went on in the same way last week, revealing his total ignorance of the Constitution and the power of Parliament in this matter. On the occasion in 1972 the Prime Minister, who was then President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and perhaps President of the Australian Labor Party at the time, was tackled about whether he was invading this man's privacy by quoting material in a very public forum. This is what our Prime Minister had to say on the argument of privacy, the same argument that the Attorney-General and the Government are now using. Senator Tate —Let us have it. We have had the build-up. Senator DURACK —I will read it to honourable senators. He said: . . . not only do I not regard it as any significant invasion of privacy that I should be concerned about, but I believe it's a duty of anyone who's got information which will disclose the nature of these people and what they will do to decent Australians, then they should be revealed for the sort of people they are and the perfidious and hypocritical actions that they undertake. I do not need to tell honourable senators that the Prime Minister said that; it is so typical of him. In the attitude he expressed in that interview he entirely refutes the Attorney-General's argument about privacy. The Attorney-General, incidentally, has refuted the Prime Minister's attitude on the powers of the Parliament which he expressed the other day. I hope that the Senate will support this motion. I am pleased that Senator Chipp has done so in a very distinguished speech in this chamber, and I am very grateful for that. I trust that the Senate as a whole will support it and that this Committee will be set up, will act promptly, efficiently, in the best traditions of Senate committees and, certainly, in accordance with the principles which Senator Evans wishes to have incorporated in the terms of reference. Amendments agreed to. Question put: That the motion (Senator Durack's), as amended, be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Mason, C. V. J. Collard, S. J. Messner, A. J. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Evans, Jack Scott, D. B. Guifoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Haines, J. Townley, M. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Primmer, C. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Gietzelt, A. T. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Zakharov, A. O. McClelland, Douglas Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Jessop, D. S. Georges, G. Martin, K. J. Giles, P. J. Rae, Peter Grimes, D. J. Walters, M. S. Hearn, J. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Assent reported. Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator HILL(South Australia)(12.30) —The Opposition will support this very simple, straightforward and brief Bill, the Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill 1984. In fact it comprises only three clauses-the short title, the commencement and the operative provision. It is a Bill for an Act to amend the previous Government's Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Act which was passed in 1977. The previous Government had legislated a reducing bounty in this area-it is now at 7.5 per cent-in recognition of the importance that Australia must attach to technological innovation and competitiveness in our changing industrial structure. Support in this way was seen as a valuable contribution to the development of indigenous automatic data processing manufacture. The period of the bounty under the existing Act is scheduled to expire on 28 March of this year. The previous Government had asked the Industries Assistance Commission in November 1982 to inquire into the level and form of government assistance to this and a number of associated industries. We understand the Government received the final report of the Commission on 10 February 1984 and, further, that it expects to announce a decision by 6 May this year. The IAC recommended that in the meantime the bounty be continued until the Government has announced its decision on the Commission's final report. Therefore, in accordance with the IAC advice, the Government proposes to continue the bounty to that date, and the Opposition supports that move. It is interesting to note, however, that the IAC brought down a draft report in October last year. The majority recognised the purpose of the bounty. I quote from the summary of conclusions at page 2 of the report: . . . to give local manufacturers the time and opportunity to establish low cost production capabilities and obtain acceptance of their products. However, it is interesting that the Commission actually recommended in the following terms: The Commission found no justification to increase or continue the present assistance and it proposes to recommend that the bounty be terminated and the duties be reduced to minimum rates. I said 'the majority' because there was a dissentient, Mr J. L. Sheaffer, who argued for positive assistance to industries with high growth potential. He claimed to identify the fact that there was substantial overseas evidence to show that industries such as the software industry have developed only in the presence of substantial government assistance. Not surprisingly the report was greeted with approval by some and disapproval by others. At that time the Opposition shadow Minister for Science and Technology, Dr Harry Edwards, put out a Press release in which to some extent he criticised the report. I remind the Senate of what he said in that Press release of 19 October 1983: The IAC is too neutral in its approach to the computer industry. In this age of the information-based society and economy, there is a case for the encouragement of greater Australian capacity in the production of ADP equipment, software and related services. The IAC report is disappointing in that it does not give a very clear picture of what the industry is about, or where it is going. It is, however, entirely appropriate that Australia should have access to computers and related products at or near world prices. Accordingly, it is accepted that tariffs in this area should be reduced or eliminated. It is less evident that bounty assistance to the industry should be terminated at this stage. The Opposition looks forward to receiving and considering the final report of the IAC. It will be interesting also to see how the Government deals with both the directly and indirectly related questions, many of which, it is conceded, are very difficult. For example, the Opposition will be interested to see whether the Government bases any new bounty arrangements and their continuation on the resulting performance of companies receiving those bounties. Also related is the vexed question of government preference policy for Australian high technology goods. I remind the Senate that in recent times we have read about considerable concern as to the practice of the Australian Government in relation to purchasing high technology products from Australian manufacturers. I refer to an article which appeared in the Age on 28 November last year, headed 'Local High-tech Lagging' and written by Margot O'Neil. It commenced: While the Federal Government encourages private investors to risk venture capital and boost fledgling 'sunrise' industries, the level of Australian content for high-technology contracts awarded by the Government is insignificant . She referred to a statement by Mr Damien Dunlop, the President of the Australian Computer Equipment Manufacturers' Association. He said this when dealing with government department suggestions that they suffer from a technological cringe: 'There is an entrenched negative attitude in the bureaucracy towards Australian high technology'. Similar views were expressed by Dr Clive Coogan of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, as reported in an article in the Age on 14 December. Dr Coogan said of government technocrats: ' Their attitude is ''We can't have this tinny Australian stuff. We know the Americans can make the best''.' Coming from a CSIRO scientist, who is a member of the Australian Science Industry Association, those words must cause senators concern. Similar views were expressed by Mr Ron Wheeldon, a partner in the Mulgrave electronics firm of B.W.D. Instruments Pty Ltd. He said: Australian industry generally has to prove itself better than everyone else to get over the mystique problem that exists. You find that technocrats tend to write specifications around foreign products, and that means you have to overcome inherent resistance to start with. I understand from an article in the Age on 14 December that a recent New South Wales Government report found that this year the micro-electronics market in Australia will reach $4.4 billion, but that local industry is abandoning manufacture and turning, instead, to direct imports. That must be a major concern and the Opposition will be particularly interested in the Government's consideration of the final report of the IAC and how it intends to wrestle with this unsatisfactory state of affairs. As I indicated, in the meantime the position is that the current bounty will be maintained, and the Opposition supports that view. In other words, the Opposition supports the continuation of a stable environment in which industry can operate. I assure the Senate that Opposition policies are at present being developed on the wider questions which we hope will be announced in the near future. The Senate can be assured that the Opposition's policies will reflect our desire to support the continued development of high technological industries and the utilisation of high technology within existing industries-an area which the Opposition feels has been neglected by the Government. However, the Opposition will not support protection for protection's sake, as is evident from the fact that the bounty under our original Act was on a reducing basis and has been reduced to 7.5 per cent. This is an interim Bill to maintain the current position pending the Government's decision on the final IAC report. For stability reasons in particular, the Opposition believes that that is a sensible course of action to adopt and therefore supports the Bill. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(12.40) —I thank the Opposition for supporting the Bill. I do not think it requires much explanation. It was said in the second reading speech that this is a temporary measure pending the Government's response to an Industries Assistance Commission report. I wish to thank Senator Hill for his thoughtful comments about the data processing industry and the computer equipment industry generally. It is a big and significant area of Australian industry and is increasingly important. Its importance is not so much on the manufacturing side, which is very important, but it is also necessary for systems based on computer technology to be introduced into Australian industry as widely as possible because of the efficiency which it provides. The Government welcomes the Opposition's response to the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Sitting suspended from 12.43 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, there have been a number of inquiries from honourable senators about Senator Georges, who had an accident yesterday in the Parliament House building and was taken to hospital following that accident. I merely wish to inform the Senate, because of those inquiries, that Senator Georges is now at home. He is apparently progressing well and is, I am told, resting in an upright position. Senator Georges and other honourable senators in this place have had plenty of practice in doing that over the years. He is progressing very well and we can all look forward to his return to the Senate in the next few days. Senator CHANEY —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to an article which appeared in today's Australian about a poor response from oil companies for off-shore permits which were released for bidding last year. Are the facts presented in the article accurate? If so, is this not another indication that the Government's essentially anti-incentive policies, particularly its intention to impose a resource rent tax on the oil industry, are having a seriously depressing impact on the oil exploration industry? Senator WALSH —It would be discourteous of me to release at this stage the results of the applications for exploration permits before I have notified the two State Ministers concerned. I will do that within the next few days and make a public announcement next week. I can however say that the conclusion which Senator Chaney has reached is at the best highly questionable because all of these areas had previously been released and been relinquished. Senator SIBRAA —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware-I am sure he is after Senator Button' s statement-that Senator Georges, after falling in the parliamentary building and apparently breaking some of his ribs, was refused X-ray treatment at the Royal Canberra Hospital last night because of the industrial action being taken by radiologists? Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's contention that radiologists in this instance are worthy of the title 'the builders labourers of the medical profession'? Senator GRIMES —My immediate response to that is to think, with my colleague Dr Blewett, that the Prime Minister was being a bit hard on the Builders Labourers Federation. I heard a story that Senator Georges was X-rayed but a radiologist could not read that X-ray because of the industrial dispute at the Royal Canberra Hospital. Senator Peter Baume —So he had the X-ray, did he? Senator GRIMES —I am unsure, but I think he had the X-ray. I think the fact is that the radiologists would not look at his X-ray. I think it is always unfortunate when something like this happens to someone we know; everyone in this place knows Senator Georges. It is unfortunate that it should happen to any patient. Senator Georges, like the rest of us here, is in the fortunate situation of, if necessary, having his X-ray done elsewhere. Our salaries are such that we can afford to do that. Senator Georges's case draws attention to the unfortunate fact that there are large numbers of patients in this country who are not as well off as those of us in this Senate, who are not in a position to have alternative treatment, but who, over the years, have contributed through their taxes to the education of those radiologists and to the provision of those facilities which those radiologists use for both training and experience in public hospitals. The most disgraceful aspect of this case-- Senator Chaney —It is better than the money they wasted on Blewett's education. Senator GRIMES —The most disgraceful aspect of this case, Senator Chaney, is that it is a clear example of what Dr Blewett has been saying and clearly against what Senator Baume pontificated about in what was alleged to be a second reading speech here today. This dispute is about the very reasonable request of this Government and other governments in this community that doctors such as radiologists, who are amongst the highest paid doctors in this country, when they use public facilities paid for by the taxpayer and when they use the skills which they acquire at the taxpayers' expense, should charge the schedule fee which has been negotiated between their profession and the Government of this country. Senator Peter Baume —It is not the issue. Senator GRIMES —I think the issue is simply that. The issue is simply what used to be called pounds, shillings and pence and is now called dollars and cents. I think it is a disgrace that this small group of highly privileged people who use equipment worth millions of dollars in public hospitals should refuse to treat anyone, be he a senator or someone who is unemployed, because they are unwilling to accept a perfectly reasonable request like that. The fact that Senator Georges was involved merely draws it to our attention. There are thousands of other people who will be involved if, as Senator Baume threatened this morning, this dispute extends to other specialists throughout the nation. As Senator Baume said this morning, by and large the medical profession is an honourable profession, but some of its members are more concerned about their income than the welfare of their patients. Senator ARCHER —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In an effort to draw some positive reaction from Federal and State governments for a co-ordinated response to the crime of arson, which appears to cost Australia close to a billion dollars annually, I asked several questions last year of the Minister representing the Treasurer, who was eventually able to report that the Treasurer was examining the matter. As I understand it, the problems attaching to arson are regularly raised at police and emergency services meetings. This concern must be regularly passed on to the Federal Government. With so much call for action, what responses have been made to date by the Commonwealth? Senator WALSH —I was hoping to get a more definitive reply from the Treasurer but that has not yet arrived. I understand that there is some United States legislation to control arson which was discussed recently at a conference held by the Australian Institute of Criminology, a fact of which apparently Senator Archer is aware. The Government is aware of that United States legislation and the Attorney-General's Department and the Treasury are currently looking at a resolution of this matter arising from the discussions and reports that were delivered at that conference. I will see whether the Treasurer has anything more recent or definitive to add to that information. Senator McINTOSH —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to the recent review of the liquefied petroleum gas pricing and subsidy arrangements following the expiry of the current arrangements on 28 March. Has the Government made a policy decision as a result of that review? If so, what are the details of that decision? Has there been any reaction to the decision? Senator WALSH —Yes, the Government has made a policy decision which was announced a few days ago. Without going into all the details of that decision because it is rather complex, I will just state in summary the effect of that decision. The decision is principally to ensure that LPG prices for all consumers are more stable in the future than they have been in the past and the rate at which prices may increase in the future will be limited to increases in the fuel and light component of the consumer price index. One of the reasons prompting the Government to make such a decision was that subsidised consumers between 1 January 1982 and 1 January 1983 were the victims of a 43 per cent increase in prices paid. Senator Chaney —And your first six months? Senator WALSH —That, of course, was under the last two reviews conducted by the previous Government. Consumers in future will not be subjected to price increases of that magnitude. The decision has been very favourably received, most importantly, I suppose, by the Australian Gas Association, which issued a Press statement on 26 March. I will read only the first paragraph of the statement, although I would like to read more. It states: The President of the Australian Gas Association . . . Mr J. M. Shaw, said today : 'The Government decision on the new Wholesale Pricing Policy for Liquefied Petroleum Gas . . . introduces a great improvement on the previous system. The arrangements will provide stability and predictability for producers, distributors and consumers. There has, of course, been some criticism. Senator Chaney criticised the decision principally because he assumed that the real price and indeed the money price of LPG would decline. The decision has also been criticised by one Terry McCrann in two articles in yesterday's and today's Melbourne Age ironically for partly the opposite reason to that which was assumed by Senator Chaney. In other words, Senator Chaney assumed that the real and money price-the export parity price-of LPG would fall. Mr McCrann assumed that it would increase. They were both critical which I suppose goes to show that those who are determined to find fault in government policy will find fault with it even it it is for mutually exclusive or contradictory reasons. Mr McCrann also today criticised the Government for not continuing to pay an $ 80 subsidy on the grounds that LPG costs nine times as much in Mount Isa as natural gas costs in Melbourne which is an extraordinary proposition for someone like Mr McCrann who is a self-proclaimed advocate of market forces and small government. Mr McCrann, it is possible, I suppose, has reversed his ideological position. But if that is not the case, I suggest he should return to his text books and relearn or learn, whichever is appropriate in his case, the theory of the crucial role played by market forces in efficiently allocating resources. Hopefully, after he has done that, he will notice that when the price of a particular resource or commodity is very high another resource or commodity should be substituted. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer to his answer in which he just misquoted the statement I put out yesterday on the liquefied petroleum gas price change. I preface my question by quoting from that statement which Senator Walsh said was predicated on the price of gas declining: . . . whether this will be of any benefit to users depends entirely on the direction of price movements. If prices continue to decline, the Government's new formula will in fact keep prices higher than they should otherwise be. Only if prices rise will there be any sort of advantage through a lag in the price being passed on to consumers. Does the Minister agree that that is an accurate summary of the effects of either a price rise or a price fall with respect to LPG? Further, does the Minister agree or admit that he has maintained the price of LPG at a higher level than it should have been under the usual pricing formula since January and that he has in fact now reduced the subsidy to LPG users from $80 to $20 per tonne? Senator WALSH —I do have a copy of Senator Chaney's statement. He has quoted accurately from it. He has put both the options and I acknowledge that. There was a Press report which I saw earlier which I think quoted only part of it. So I acknowledge that Senator Chaney presented both possible options. The second part of Senator Chaney's question relates to an alleged reduction in the subsidy . It is correct, of course, that the cost to the Government is very substantially reduced while present price relativities hold. I would have thought that the opponents of reckless government expenditure, those people who are presently in Opposition, would have commended any policy which had that effect. But more importantly I think and probably more relevant to the point which Senator Chaney was trying to make is the fact that although the present price relativities substantially reduce the cost of the arrangements to the taxpayers-and we should bear in mind that it is the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill-they simultaneously ensure that consumers, be they subsidised or non- subsidised consumers, will not be subject to the wild price variations which have occurred over the past couple of years. In particular, they will be immune from the enormous 43 per cent increase in the price to subsidised consumers which occurred in the last 12 months of the previous Government. That can never happen again. The other part of Senator Chaney's question related to the timing of the adjustment of the administered price. I have been making statements for several months to the effect that the Government had deferred the adjustment of the administered price until the end of March because we were reviewing the whole package of pricing and subsidy together, which is what we have now done. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I refer to a reported statement by the Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University that the low number of Australian students completing secondary schooling is a 'national disgrace'. What percentage of students complete 12 years of schooling in Australia and how does this percentage compare with school participation rates in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries? What can the Federal and State governments do to increase the percentage of Australian students who complete secondary education? Senator RYAN —I agree with the Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University that it is a national disgrace that such a low proportion of our young people complete secondary education compared with the proportions in similar countries. The appropriate measure to use when talking about students completing secondary schooling is the apparent retention rate from first to final year of secondary schooling. The latest data available for Australia shows that the apparent retention rate to final year secondary schooling was 36.3 per cent in 1982. Strictly comparable data for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries is not available but the information which is available indicates that some OECD countries have retention rates of about 80 per cent. The Federal Government can address this serious problem by continuing the initiative we have already taken under the participation and equity program. Under that program about $75m is being made available to States and Territories this year to promote changes in government and non-government schools and tertiary and further education colleges that will make the programs better adapted to the needs and interests of young people, particularly to those young people who form part of that disadvantaged group which have been leaving school early. The Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission are working actively with the authorities in the States on the development of this program. Representative committees are being established in the States to guide its development and to involve actively parents, teachers and young people. In respect of that part of Senator Colston's question about what the Federal and State governments can do, I think an important part of the answer is to co- operate in this matter. I have gone to great lengths to secure the co-operation of my State ministerial colleagues in the development of the participation and equity program because we recognise that the changes that need to be made will be made effectively only if the State governments understand and share our objectives. I am happy to report to Senator Colston that a high degree of co- operation with all State Ministers of education has been established. The committees have now been appointed. I hope that the improved programs for the upper secondary years will start to operate this year and as a result at the end of this year we will be able to record a participation rate which is something better than the one we inherited from the present Opposition and which will start to move that national disgrace into a much more constructive and optimistic outlook for young people. Senator MASON —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Is it a fact that the morbidity study being considered for the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam is estimated to cost $10m over an eight-year period? Of what order are the other costs of the Royal Commission? Has the Government considered the demonstrable fact that if these vast sums of money were devoted to actual relief of the symptoms of Vietnam veterans, the lives of many people could be saved and the conditions of life for hundreds more immeasurably improved? Will the Government examine most carefully the financial commitment of this Royal Commission to decide whether it is completely justified. If it is not completely justified, will the Government instead devote the funds which would have been expended in lawyers' fees and other costs to ex gratia payments to relieve Australian veterans who often, through no choice of their own but because they were conscripts, were exposed to health damage in Vietnam? Senator GIETZELT —On 14 May last year the Government announced the establishment of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam and appointed Mr Justice Phillip Evatt as Royal Commissioner. Since that time there have been a number of public hearings and some evidence has been given by Defence Department personnel, members of the Vietnam Veterans Association, and other technical experts. However, arising out of those public hearings, the Royal Commissioner has written to the Prime Minister suggesting that, having regard to his obligations under the terms of reference-incidentally, they were approved after extensive consultation with the Vietnam Veterans Association and other veterans' organisations-he will require a morbidity study. That is currently receiving the consideration of the Government . I am sure that Senator Mason would not want me to do more than refer to the fact that it is receiving the consideration of the Government. The morbidity study is designed to establish, as suggested by the Royal Commissioner, whether Vietnam veterans are sicker than other members of the Australian community and whether the conscripts are sicker than the control group in Australia's shameful involvement in the war in Vietnam. They are matters which are receiving the consideration of the Government. Senator Mason also asked about the costs involved. I am not in a position to reply to that question other than to say that under the Repatriation Act the Repatriation Commission is obliged to give benefits to veterans wherever they served, in accordance with the legislation. It is not possible, for example, under the current legislation to give benefits in globo to veterans just because they say that they are eligible for them. They have to go through the determining system and satisfy the basic criteria of the Repatriation Act. Certainly it would cost government a considerable sum of money to give every veteran who went to Vietnam a benefit that he believed he was entitled to get. In any case, it would require amendments to the legislation to provide for that situation. Consequently, of course, the Government established the Royal Commission to determine whether the sickness that many Vietnam veterans suffer arises as a result of the use of chemical agents in their involvement in Vietnam . I remind Senator Mason that some 17 per cent of veterans who went to Vietnam are already in receipt of benefits. If that number were to be extended there would be a very considerable expenditure blowout because of the number of payments that would have to be made. Therefore, the Government has to consider the costs that may be involved if it decides to go ahead with a morbidity study. Senator MASON —I ask a supplementary question. With respect to the Minister, I press him on this point. He has not given me any sort of answer on costs. If this matter is being considered by Cabinet there must be some idea of the order of cost of the morbidity study and of the Royal Commission at large. I ask the Minister again whether he can give us some idea of those costs. Is it a matter of thousands, millions, or tens of millions of dollars? Is it possible to get some indication from him? Senator GIETZELT —It has to be accepted that matters before Cabinet are not matters for public discussion. If the Government decides to approve the morbidity study it will obviously announce the costs involved. That is as far as I can go at this stage. Senator COOK —Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to the report of the Auditor-General, tabled in the Senate yesterday? The Minister may be aware that in that report the Auditor-General stated: The amount of tax outstanding is a matter of concern. At 30 June 1983 it was $2 ,904 million, 90% of which was income tax . . . Tax outstanding as a proportion of collectable tax has risen from 9% in 1976-77 to 23% in 1982-83, largely because of the increase in the amount outstanding from taxpayers involved in tax avoidance schemes . . . For similar reasons, the amount outstanding in debts for which recovery action has been taken and which are greater than 24 months in age , has risen since 1981 from 44% to 53% of recovery case debts. Is the Government concerned about this matter? What action is it taking to ensure that tax avoiders accept their responsibilities towards the rest of the community? Senator WALSH —I have not actually seen or read the Auditor-General's report but I have seen reports in the Press along the lines to which Senator Cook referred. The short answer is yes, the Government is most concerned about this matter. The Government has a very strong commitment to ensure that people, especially those with high incomes, pay the tax that should be paid, and to the corollary that, therefore, honest taxpayers will pay less tax than they would otherwise have to pay. In applying that policy, however, the Government has been frustrated by half the Senate on at least four occasions in the last 10 months. The figures cited by Senator Cook from the report are substantially the result of lagged collections, although probably not entirely, and they are therefore, in the main, once and for all payments rather than continuing avoidance. There is, however, an avoidance component in those figures. For that reason, the Government has substantially increased the resources available to the Australian Taxation Office in order to pick up the lagged collections and reduce the incentive for tax avoiders and would-be tax avoiders and to increase the certainties of their being caught. The Commissioner of Taxation, however, in attempting to do that job on behalf of the Government, has been frustrated, as has the Government. While people like Senator Harradine continue to provide hope and succour for tax avoiders and would-be tax avoiders by using their votes to tie and therefore defeat crucial government legislation, the Taxation Commissioner will be handicapped and the tax dodgers and avoiders will be encouraged. The ultimate victims of that outcome, of course, will be the workers , who will pay more pay as you earn taxation than they would otherwise need or ought to pay. Ironically, I note that they are the very people Senator Harradine purports to represent. However convoluted or contorted Senator Harradine's thinking and argument on this matter may be, the Australian Council of Trade Unions has a very clear and firm knowledge of the effects on the workers of encouraging tax avoidance and tax dodgers. That is one of the reasons that the ACTU pressed strongly to have inserted into the prices and incomes accord reached last year a provision that tax avoidance would be stamped out. The Government has done what it can to honour that side of the accord. When Senator Harradine and the other 25 vote as they did yesterday and as they have done on three previous occasions- The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is now reflecting on a vote of the Senate. Senator WALSH —On four occasions votes have been recorded in the Senate which were effectively votes in favour of higher taxes being imposed on workers and in support of tax avoiders, thereby imposing unnecessary strain on the accord, the success of which is essential for the restoration of full employment. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the public concern about Medicare and to one particular matter in the array of concerns, that is, the Medicare administrative arrangement that receipts issued by doctors for payments made by patients are being required to be handed over to Medicare offices when the approved Medicare reimbursement is being claimed. Will the Minister confirm that there is no authority in the Act or in any regulation for this administrative decision? Will the Minister agree that the signed Medicare claim form is sufficient for administrative and audit purposes? Finally, I ask the Government to publicise to Medicare offices and the public at large the statement of the Minister for Health made in the House of Representatives on 7 March in which he said: Last week we instructed the Health Insurance Commission to provide receipts to cash claimers who requested them. Senator GRIMES —The answer to the last part of Senator Teague's question is that that matter has already received considerable publicity. If Senator Teague has any advice on how it can be more officially publicised, I will take that matter up with the Minister for Health. One of the problems with publicising changes to Medicare is that publicity gets mixed up with all the misinformation put out by people such as Senator Teague. As for the first part of Senator Teague's question, I will seek the information from the Minister and get a reply as soon as I can. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister has asked for my suggestions. Members of the public have complained to me this week that when they go to Medicare offices their receipts are not returned. I ask whether at least publicity can be given to Medicare offices to resolve this problem. Senator GRIMES —Medicare offices throughout the country have been notified that they will provide receipts to cash customers who request them. That matter has been publicised in the Press and other media. The only way of getting a message like that to every single citizen of the country would be to send a letter to every single citizen. I do not think the honourable senator would seriously suggest that we do that. One solution to the problem would be for people such as Senator Teague to tell the truth to their constituents instead of telling lies, as he is doing now. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is he aware of allegations made today by the honourable member for Denison that the Government has failed to bring to the Parliament's attention a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia permitting evidence of tape recordings of telephone conversations obtained in breach of Commonwealth law to be admitted in criminal proceedings? Will the Attorney-General indicate whether there is any substance at all in these allegations? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to Senator Bolkus for his question. As Senator Ryan said to me a moment ago, I was beginning to twitch from question deprivation syndrome. The matters raised by Mr Hodgman in the House of Representatives and elsewhere today are coloured by his usual disregard for the truth in matters of legal analysis, political judgment and every other respect any of us can think of. The reality is that there is no analogy at all between the circumstances of the apparently illegal interceptions that led to the preparation of the Age tapes and transcripts and the situation considered by Mr Justice Cosgrove in the Tasmanian case of Migliorini. That Tasmanian case concerned interceptions made with the consent and co-operation of one of the parties to the calls in question. The apparatus consisted of a suction cap and tape recorder, connected to the phone by the police sergeant concerned. The conversations in question were themselves the crucial evidence of the criminality involved in that case insofar as they demanded large sums of money from the party in question and were coupled with threats against the party's wife and children. The circumstances of the taping involved, when a call was received, the party pressing the record button and the ensuing conversation then being received on the tape. That is a very different kind of interception situation from that which appeared to be the case in the alleged interceptions in the Age tapes situation. In that case there was apparently no element of co- operation by any of the parties to the conversations apparently intercepted. In summing up in the Tasmanian case the judge said that the illegality in that case was not intentional or reckless and the acts of the police and the party concerned involved no overt defiance of the will of the legislature or calculated disregard of the common law. He also said that the reception of the evidence in that case did not amount to the condonation or approval of deliberate breaches of the law by the police and did not demean the court as a tribunal whose concern is in upholding the law. Indeed, applying the principles articulated by Mr Justice Cosgrove in that case, it would be completely fair to say that, on what we know about the Age tapes and transcripts at the moment and the alleged circumstances of their coming into being, he would have rejected them as evidence. In addition to that, as I said in the course of the debate this morning, it is not now and never has been the Government's position that the mere fact of evidence being illegally obtained in Australia means that it is inadmissible in court proceedings. That is basically the situation in the United States and some other jurisdictions but it is not and never has been the situation in Britain and Australia. It is a matter of the court weighing and balancing public interest considerations of the kind that were obviously taken into account by Mr Justice Cosgrove in the Tasmanian case. As further evidence of Mr Hodgman's utter incapacity to follow a straight line in these matters, I refer the Senate to the fact that in the opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, tabled by the Government in both Houses of Parliament during the first week of the present sittings, the following point was specifically made: It does not necessarily follow that evidence cannot be given of an unlawfully intercepted telephone conversation. It is the case that the Government has been very concerned to emphasise the apparent illegality of the tapes and transcripts in issue in the Age case. However, we have never done so in a context where we have claimed that by virtue of that illegality the material would be automatically inadmissible. We have said there would be very profound public interest reasons why it should be carefully considered by the courts before its admissibility was guaranteed and that those considerations should weigh heavily with the Parliament. There is no foundation to Mr Hodgman's claim. Senator Chaney —Mr President, in order to show the Attorney-General's incapacity to answer any question without abuse, pursuant to standing order 363 I ask him to table the papers from which he has quoted, which will enable us to show that the abusive bits at least were his own. Senator Gareth Evans —I am happy to oblige. Senator MISSEN —My question, addressed to the Attorney-General, relates to the powers presently vested in the Human Rights Commission and, in particular, the doubts that exist as to its effective right to investigate denials of freedom of speech and thought by State governments which have national and indeed international ramifications. I draw the Attorney-General's attention to an article in the Australian of 15 February 1984 by Dr Ross Fitzgerald of Griffith University, claiming that academic freedom is under threat in Queensland especially at the college of advanced education level, which is more under Queensland Government control than is the university level. Does the article disclose a number of threats to free speech and to discussion of public issues on CAE campuses? Will the Attorney-General comment on Dr Fitzgerald's claim that , with the Queensland Cabinet having control over both attendances of academics at overseas conferences and all new technical and further education and CAE courses and courses at James Cook University, and with all tertiary administrations appearing to have acquiesced in the Government's direct political involvements in the vetting of research, the way is open for a determined anti-intellectual witch hunt with McCarthyist overtones? The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Others want to ask questions, too. Senator MISSEN —I know, Mr President. I have waited a month to ask this question and I hope I will have your indulgence to complete it. In the light of these serious claims, I ask the Attorney-General: Firstly, does the Government accept that even under its limited powers there is, and ought to be, some responsibility by the Human Rights Commission in reporting in this area; and, secondly, will the Government's proposed amendments to the Human Rights Commission clarify this situation? Senator GARETH EVANS —The answer on both counts is yes. I am afraid that in the course of the one month I have been waiting to answer Senator Missen's question, of which I had some advance notice, whatever notes I might have had have drifted into the system so I am unable to do more than give an impressionistic response to the detail, which no doubt will please Senator Chaney and honourable senators opposite no end. The reality is that there are all sorts of unhappy human rights invading things occurring north of the Tweed. That has been the case for some years. The Government is well aware of it. There is an overwhelming case for national human rights legislation being promulgated, not the toothless variety that was the commitment of the previous Government. There is a case for the Human Rights Commission having a jurisdiction in that respect. A Queensland regional director of the Human Rights Commission has just been appointed and I believe that appointment shortly will be announced, and the opening of a Queensland regional office will be accomplished in due course. At the moment there are very limited jurisdictional respects in which the Human Rights Commission can operate on the ground in Queensland; it really applies only in the context of the Racial Discrimination Act. It will also shortly be in the context of the Sex Discrimination Act. But there is an excellent case for expanding in due course the scope of our legislative and administrative backup in that particular area. Senator REYNOLDS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that there are no family planning services available in Queensland hospitals and that therefore the Family Planning Association of Queensland has relied on the Federal Government for the establishment of seven clinics between 1972 and 1978? However, over the last five years, under the previous Government's no-growth policy, no new centres have been established leaving Toowoomba, Bundaberg, Mackay, Mount Isa and other large country centres without access to family planning services. Will the Minister indicate what priority family planning provisions may have in forthcoming Budget discussions? Can Queenslanders rely on the Federal Government in this regard as the Queensland Government still appears to have a populate or perish mentality? Senator GRIMES —I was aware that there was some difficulty with family planning clinics in Queensland. I know there are no family planning clinics in Queensland hospitals. Perhaps that is the reason for Queensland having the highest rate of illegitimate births in this country. Senator Boswell —It is the free hospital system. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, I really think we should do something about Senator Boswell. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Grimes to answer Senator Reynolds's question . Senator GRIMES —He goes home and has trouble with his servants and comes back here and takes it out on us. I am aware that the Queensland Government and Senator Boswell have great difficulty in agreeing to the setting up of family planning clinics. I understand also that the Queensland Government has a bit of a problem up there about education on such matters in the schools. Perhaps that reflects the prejudices of the members of the Government and the members of the National Party of Australia in Queensland rather than any desire to populate or perish. I know, as Senator Reynolds knows, that the Commonwealth Government has a policy of continuing to support the family planning associations. There is some difficulty with States like Queensland which are opposed to the activities of the family planning clinics. They do what they can, not just by not funding them, to put obstacles in the way of the establishment of such clinics. I cannot give the honourable senator details of what will happen in the next Budget. However, I assure the honourable senator that the Minister for Health and other members of the Cabinet have a very real concern for the continuation of this important work. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask whether the Leader of the Government in the Senate remembers the Prime Minister's statement on 11 February 1983 when he said: Now one thing you will find throughout this campaign is that I am not going to make promises that I cannot keep. Does he also recall the claim made five days later in the Australian Labor Party policy speech that 'Less than one per cent of taxpayers will pay higher taxes'? How do these statements stand up against the fact that the family man is paying 22 per cent more in tax this year than last year and that the Government is considering introducing a whole new range of additional taxes such as a capital gains tax, which the Leader of the Government in the Senate is so keen on, a wealth tax, death duties, a resource rental tax and taxes on job related fringe benefits? Senator BUTTON —I do not recall the statement made by the Prime Minister on 11 February 1983. However, I accept Senator MacGibbon's claim that such a statement was made. I think it was about 4 March 1983, however, that the Government, on assuming office, found itself confronted with the most horrible economic mess that this country has ever seen. It had been engendered by the policies of the previous Government. I remind the Senate that in the course of the previous three years of the Fraser Government, unemployment in this country increased by a quarter of a million, inflation operated at over 11 per cent and there was a deficit which the former Prime Minister attempted to conceal but which was revealed on 6 March 1983 to the Australian people. The situation of manufacturing industry in Australia was worse than it had ever been. Senator Chaney —And you knew nothing about that when you were running for government. Senator BUTTON —We knew a lot about that when we went into government. We did not know about the size of the deficit though, Senator Chaney, and that deliberate attempts had been made to mislead the people of Australia about it. In those circumstances I find Senator MacGibbon's question quite extraordinary. I do not accept his figure of a 22 per cent increase in tax for the average pay as you earn taxpayer. I am not denying it; I am saying that I am not in a position to accept or deny it. There were other matters raised by Senator Gibbon -I am sorry, MacGibbon; I keep dropping the prefix to his name-relating to a wealth tax, a resources rental tax and other taxes. The Government has taken the view for some time that, in a democracy such as Australia's, these are appropriate issues for public debate and are not something to be kept in the back closet of the Cabinet room or the Liberal Party. They are appropriate matters for public debate. There is, I think, consensus on all sides of politics that there is a real need for a restructuring of the tax system of Australia. In the process of restructuring, all those issues have to be taken into account. Anybody who denies that those issues should be taken into account is refusing to face reality and refusing to face the necessity for open debate in this country about those issues. This Government is not in that category even if the Opposition is. The Opposition has revealed in this style of question that in some respect it has the properties of oxygen. It is colourless and tasteless but unhappily not odourless. There is a stench of intellectual decay. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In the light of such a scintillating intellectual display of arrogance and ignorance I ask the Leader of the Government if he is not aware that oxygen is essential for life. The PRESIDENT —Order! That is not a supplementary question. Senator RICHARDSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Following an announcement made by the Prime Minister on his visit to Papua New Guinea last year that Australia would increase its aid to that country, can the Minister inform the Senate of the total amount of Australia's aid program to Papua New Guinea this financial year? What proportion of that amount will be in the form of an open grant to the Papua New Guinea Government and what proportion will be tied to specific projects? Further, is there any evidence to support the claim by the Papua New Guinea Opposition leader, Mr Okuk, that some of Australia's aid to that country is ending up in political slush funds? In an interview in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on 20 December 1983, Mr Okuk, when referring to how the aid money was misspent, was reported as having said: . . . the ruling Pangu Party won because 'while I was holding a big party and giving beer-they were bribing the polling clerks. 'Most of the people to whom I gave beer, drank it all but didn't vote for me,' . . . 'Next time, I'll have to give more beer to the polling clerks-that would be cheaper.' In the light of this, is the Government considering any change to its foreign aid policy towards Papua New Guinea by insisting that a greater proportion of the aid be tied? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am advised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that Australian aid to Papua New Guinea in 1983-84 will amount to $302.6m. There are four elements in that. They include a grant-in-aid of $288m, termination payments and retirement benefits for overseas officers of former administrations in the Australian staffing assistance group of $12m, and miscellaneous budget items and other direct expenditures of $2m. An amount of approximately $3m is to be paid by Papua New Guinea to Australian revenue in repayment of loans past made. The proportion of this assistance provided in the form of an open grant or grant-in-aid is 95.4 per cent. Apart from some small scale assistance provided through non-government organisations amounting to $280,000, Australia does not provide project aid to Papua New Guinea. The grant-in-aid payments are made directly to the Papua New Guinea Government's Budget and are used according to the central Government's requirements and priorities. Despite the suggestions emanating from Mr Okuk and elsewhere, there is no evidence to support any allegation that there is or has been any misuse of Australian aid funds. The larger question of the future of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea is currently being considered by the Aid Review Committee which is chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson. Despite some impressions to the contrary in the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago, that Committee has not yet completed its report, although it is now in its final stages of preparation. The Minister hopes to be able to table that report in the Parliament during the current session. It will be publicly available. No doubt it will attract considerable community interest and comment. It is certainly the Government's intention that there should be a full opportunity for public consideration of its recommendations before final decisions are taken by the Government. Senator TOWNLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I ask: Is it true that the reception at Channel 10, Sydney last week for the launching of the domestic tourism campaign by Minister Brown cost in excess of $100,000? What justification can there be for spending so much of the taxpayers' money on free booze, food and other things for so many elite people in Sydney, most of whom are already very well fed? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the total cost and assure it that such waste on things such as booze and food will not occur again? Can the Minister also advise the Senate who in the Australian Tourist Commission authorised that expenditure? Senator RYAN —I have no knowledge of the matters that Senator Townley has raised. I am unable to give him any information. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, and seek an answer for Senator Townley. Senator CHILDS —Can the Attorney-General give an assurance that any new system of video classifications will not mean that snuff movies and sadistic movies showing the violent debasement of human beings can be commercially exploited? Senator GARETH EVANS —Perhaps I should put the matter in context by saying that the whole question of videos involving extreme violence or sadism should be seen as part of a total scheme of regulation which the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have been seeking to implement since this matter was discussed and agreed in principle at a meeting held in July last year. The basic system is built around the principle of ensuring maximum freedom for adults to view what they wish in the privacy of their own homes but, at the same time, giving reasonable guidance to consumers as to what they are buying or hiring and placing some limits on what can be openly displayed or sold to children. The new system is broadly in two parts-firstly, as it relates to imports and, secondly, as it relates to domestic sales and hiring of videos. So far as imports are concerned, there has been a long overdue clarification of Customs regulation 4A. Basically what this amounts to is that material will be allowed into the country unless it fits into one of three fairly extreme categories of which Senator Childs's extreme sadism kind of material would be one. The three categories are: Child pornography; publications which incite to terrorism, by which of course it is intended to include not the kind of political material that was the subject of controversy a few weeks ago, but rather material containing instructions on how to manufacture terrorist weaponry and so on; and publications containing gratuitously extreme violence or cruelty, especially in combination with some sexual element. Those items are refused classification, or are intended to be, if they are discovered at the Customs barrier. Senator Peter Baume —Why do you limit by the word 'gratuitously'? Senator GARETH EVANS —Obviously a war film or a documentary demonstrating extreme violence in the context of a factual documentary would hardly be gratuitous. Similarly, extreme violence occurring in an artistically legitimate context. Perhaps one could argue about that but it is one of those things about which reasonable guidelines can be objectively drawn and ascertained. As far as the domestic side of the coin is concerned, what is proposed is that each jurisdiction puts into place a system of point of sale controls on video material and that that point of sale control system be built around an internal classification system involving primarily the Film Censorship Board. The classifications are to be voluntary in the sense that it is not necessary for every video, including the Sound of Music and Donald Duck cartoons, to be put through the system, but anyone who wants to ensure that he will not be prosecuted either for selling material which would be refused classification or for not having the right point of sale controls over extreme or X-rated type material has to voluntarily get his material classified. There are real sanctions-namely, the threat of prosecution-if he does not get the material classified, which should make the system work very well in practice. The classification standards that are to be applied domestically are basically the same as those that are applicable to cinemas-namely, G, NRC, M and R-but with a further category of X to be added for stronger material which would be refused cinema showing. There are appropriately graded point of sale controls. In the 'refused classification altogether' category, there are three types of material which again mirror those which are refused importation altogether. They are: Child pornography; incitement to terrorism; and again this category of extreme violence gratuitously displayed or cruelty, especially in combination with a sexual element. That system is now in place in the Australian Capital Territory domestically. It is imminent in Victoria, Western Australia and the Northern Territory and it is in place in South Australia. The system is under active government consideration in New South Wales and Queensland. We are gradually getting some rationality into the process. I add finally that Senator Childs made a reference not only to sadistic movies but also to so-called snuff movies. As I understand it, snuff movies are movies which involve the actual killing of a person with the camera rolling for the gratification of the viewer. However, I am led to believe by those who are knowledgable in these matters-I did have the former Director of the Melbourne Film Festival on my staff at one stage-that there are no such things as snuff movies in the sense that there has never been any evidence that a movie properly so described has ever been produced anywhere. The idea of a snuff movie is really the product of, firstly, good special effects work, secondly, overheated journalistic imaginations and, thirdly, gullible consumers. I hope that this debate, important as it may be and as sensitive an issue as it may be, is not unduly coloured by references to material which is in fact more a product of mythology than reality. Senator MACKLIN —Mr President, my question is directed to you. It follows a letter I wrote to you on 1 March in which I referred to an article in the Canberra Times on 27 February 1984 in which a claim was made that an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation agent was appointed to the staff of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. I sought your advice as to whether this may be seen as constituting a matter of privilege. Your advice to me was that it was not a matter upon which a Presiding Officer should properly express an opinion. Therefore, in order to clarify whether a prima facie case exists, I ask: Was an ASIO agent appointed to the staff of the Public Accounts Committee? If such an agent was appointed, who recommended the appointment and who was responsible for the appointment? The PRESIDENT —Since I have occupied this position the administration of the Public Accounts Committee has never been my responsibility. For some years the staffing and administrative arrangements for the Public Accounts Committee were the responsibility of the Joint House Department, but since December 1982 the staffing and administrative arrangements of the Public Accounts Committee have been transferred from the Joint House Department to the Department of the House of Representatives. That being so, the matter is clearly not one for my jurisdiction but for my colleague, the Speaker, and I shall refer the question to the Speaker and ask him to respond to the honourable senator. Senator CROWLEY —Is the Attorney-General aware of the increasing number of proposals by major Australian banks to introduce new systems of electronic funds transfer, known as EFTs, including the announcement yesterday of proposals involving the Commonwealth Banking Corporation? Is the Attorney-General aware of the call by the Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, Justice Michael Kirby, for comprehensive Federal legislation to deal with consumer and privacy issues posed by electronic funds transfers? Is the Government taking any action, or proposing any, to deal with these questions, especially as developments in these matters are currently proceeding apace? Senator GARETH EVANS —Electronic funds transfer encompasses a range of different technologies and functions among which there is a degree of confusion and among which there are rather different regulatory considerations that may be applicable. The three basic categories of EFT, as I understand it, are these: First, computer clearing houses, for example for interbank money transfers, for the clearing of cheques which is dealt with in the Cheques Bill recently tabled, or for share transfers. The second category is the automatic teller machines which are already widely installed and now very familiar to Australian consumers . The third category on which most of the recent attention has focused is the point of sale machines which allow in effect a plastic card to be inserted in a machine in a shop, the result of which is that money is transferred directly from the customer's bank account to the shopkeeper's bank account. It tends to be that third development which is causing the most concern, certainly in my policy area and that of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment who is responsible for consumer affairs. The matters in issue here are: Contractual terms between banks and customers, including liabilities for loss of card, fraud, computer error and so on; consumer protection generally; and questions of privacy relating to rights of access and the challenge to and use of computer stored data. These sorts of matters have been the subject of expressions of concern by Paul Landa, the New South Wales Attorney-General, by Justice Michael Kirby of the Australian Law Reform Commission and by a number of other consumer credit counselling groups and others active in this field to the effect that there is an urgent need for laws to address EFT issues. On the other hand, we had the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System considering this matter recently and saying that there was no pressing need for legislation, although it did recommend the establishment of a committee chaired by the Reserve Bank of Australia consisting of bank and non-bank members to supervise the Australian payments system, especially EFT, to monitor developments and to foster appropriate technological standards. The Government is giving consideration to this whole question. I have written to the Treasurer recently seeking the speedy establishment of an interdepartmental working party. My Department, and I believe that of the consumer affairs Minister, has commenced consultations with consumer and credit counselling organisations and with interested banks to get details of their views and an understanding of the technology being developed. I have established within my Department a task force which is generally concerned with the implementation of the Law Reform Commission's recent report on privacy which also bears on these issues. It is a rapidly developing field of new technology, as Senator Crowley had indicated. It is not beyong dispute that expensive legal regulation is likely to be necessary in this area. It certainly is something to which we have to give urgent consideration and we are doing just that. Senator PETER RAE —Did the Attorney-General provide advice in writing to the Minister for Health on 30 November 1983 on the Commonwealth's legislative power to control cigarette advertising? Did that advice say that it would 'not be constitutionally improper' for the Commonwealth to legislate to further control cigarette advertising and suggest that the corporations power could be used to regulate newspaper and magazine publishers in this respect, the Tasmanian dams case having set a precedent for such action? Does the Attorney-General agree that such legislation would trespass upon an area which has been traditionally regarded as one for the State legislatures, would constitute a further incursion into the legislative rights of the States and would further threaten the freedom of the Press? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some recollection of the letter to which Senator Rae refers but his access to it in recent times has obviously been better than mine. In response to the substance of his question, I simply say that in these matters I am but a mere legal technician expressing views as to what the Constitution allows by way of possible legislative activity in this area. Any policy questions of the kind with which the honourable senator is concerned should be addressed to the Minister for Health. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Walsh in an answer that he gave to a question today. Senator Walsh indicated in his answer that my opposition to retrospective legislation is somehow inconsistent with my lifelong commitment to workers' rights. A concern of mine is that, if this Government is allowed to get away with retrospective legislation against taxpayers who have not acted illegally, another government may aim retrospective legislation against workers on a wide range of issues. My actions yesterday were consistent with my support of workers' rights. Indeed, I moved for a select committee to pursue the overriding need to redress any financial disadvantage suffered by workers for whose benefit the cherry-picker superannuation schemes were ostensibly established. In other words, I wanted to see that the workers had the first bite at the cherry. In rejecting this move, Senator Walsh telegraphed the Government's intention blindly to levy retrospective taxes at any price, including at the cost of workers' rights. For Senator Walsh to use the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Australian Labor Party prices and incomes accord to discredit my attempts last night to protect workers' rights demonstrates his determination to misrepresent my motives and my actions. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented in Question Time today by Senator Grimes. Senator Grimes implied that in my question to him today I was not telling the truth. I bring four facts to the attention of the Senate and make the plea that it should not be necessary for honourable senators asking genuine questions to be so abused by Ministers. I set out that it is the truth that this week I was approached by constituents concerned about receipts having to be handed over to Medicare offices. It is the truth that in my reply to those constituents I pointed to the statement by the Minister for Health (Mr Blewett) in the House of Representatives, which I quoted in Question Time. Their response to that was that Medicare offices do not know about this. It is the truth that this week my office rang the office of the Minister for Health in Canberra and was told that receipts will be kept by Medicare offices because they are required by Medibank and for audit purposes. Instead of the return of receipts Medicare will give certified computer statements for tax purposes. Finally, it is true that this week in Adelaide the Medicare hot line, which is set up to answer public inquiries, did not know of the Government's policy on the return of receipts. I assert all of this as fact and as current to this week . I therefore ask Senator Grimes to withdraw directly his slur upon my ability to speak the truth, and I ask for his apology. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator GRIMES —Senator Teague, in his usual manner, has- Senator Button —Misunderstood. Senator GRIMES —No, not even misunderstood. He has misrepresented my answer to his question. My answer was that it would be easier to get out the information, such as the information given in the Minister's statement, if that sort of message was not surrounded, I think was the word I used, or confused by the sorts of lies that are put out about Medicare by people such as Senator Teague and others. That is what I said and that is what the honourable senator can read in the Hansard. Senator Teague —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw the word 'lies'. I take that very personally. Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator can take it all he likes. Senator Teague —I ask him to withdraw. Senator GRIMES —I point out- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Grimes, the point of order was on the question of your withdrawing the word 'lies', as you expressed it. You made a very clear implication that Senator Teague was lying. You should withdraw that implication. Senator GRIMES —Mr Deputy President, I was explaining what I answered this afternoon. No request to withdraw was made then by Senator Teague or the President. You may ask that I withdraw it, and I will do so under those circumstances. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You should withdraw that remark. Senator GRIMES —I will withdraw, but it is very hard to make a personal explanation. What I said was that it is very difficult to get out the message that has to be got out by the Government and by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), if it is surrounded by the lies about Medicare being put out by members of the Opposition. I hope that is within the Standing Orders. I was referring to the fact that members of the Opposition on occasions get up and tell lies about Medicare. I was not referring to Senator Teague's question, as he put it this afternoon. I was not referring to the items in his question. I suggest Senator Teague read the Hansard to see what I answered. If he is so sensitive that he cannot take a reply such as that, I suggest he ask questions of someone who is a little less aggressive, such as my colleague the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) or the Leader of the Government in the Senate ( Senator Button) and put his questions to me on notice. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —In the course of a debate on Government papers in the Senate on 1 March, in relation to a special investigation report of the Bureau of Air Safety on aircraft VH-WJC, Senator Lewis raised the issue of what discussions took place between the pilot and air traffic control prior to the accident which was the subject of the investigation. I was the Minister on duty when Senator Lewis asked whether I could obtain a transcript of those discussions and make it available to the Senate. I have obtained a transcript from the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) and hereby table it for the information of honourable senators. I remind the Senate that the Minister for Aviation has established an independent committee of review to examine the position of search and rescue facilities in Australia. This committee is expected to present its report shortly and I anticipate that it will be available to honourable senators soon afterwards. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Mr President has received a letter from Senator Messner proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The failure of the Minister for Health to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. 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 MESSNER(South Australia)(3.16) —The point of the matter of public importance is to draw attention to the Government's failure in recent times to implement its most essential promise for which it has claimed great credit since coming to power; that is, the institution of a simple and fair health insurance system. Amid the smoke and dust of the last few weeks, as the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has become embroiled more and more deeply with the doctors and other people who are interested in the welfare of the needy and the sick particularly, there has been a confusion of the real aims of the Government in establishing, as it has, this nationalised system of health insurance. The introduction of Medicare on 1 February was against the background of one of the world's most effective and efficient health schemes already operating in Australia. It previously offered a mixture of public and private health care, with freedom of choice for those who sought it. We are witnessing the destruction of that system in favour of a scheme whose inadequacies are now painfully obvious to all and which suffers from deficiencies which it has been claimed by its creators were its greatest benefits. Those are the questions of simplicity and of fairness. Firstly, let us consider what the Minister's obvious objectives were in establishing Medicare. We note that he has adopted the so-called salami approach to the problem of attacking first the position of diagnostic specialists, no doubt with the object of then proceeding to attend to the problems of other types of specialists, particularly surgeons, and so on through a whole range of medical practitioners down to general practitioners, so as to establish eventually a totally socialised health insurance system. In the process we have witnessed in the last few weeks the lock-out of diagnostic specialists operating in hospitals provided by governments in various States. I remind the Senate of the intentions of the Minister, which he spelt out quite clearly in August last year in a speech to the Doctors Reform Society, when he said: . . . It was agreed at the July Health Ministers' Conference that attention to these problems should be initially directed to the area of diagnostic services, with the intention to move more broadly in due course. I do not think now that any of us could have any doubt about what was meant by ' more broadly'. Clearly the Government has instituted its procedures and practices here to establish a more comprehensive health scheme based on nationalisation of the interests of practitioners, certainly on a basis broader than that of diagnostic specialists. The point that has to be made here quite clearly is that the subjugation of the medical profession is in force through the establishment of a socialised system of health insurance which is aimed not at improving the health care of individual Australians but of establishing what is basically a commitment to an ideological principle which is quite foreign to a system that has served Australia well in previous years. Let us examine what Medicare really means. It is supposed to cover people generally for basic health cover, both for medical expenses, as to 85 per cent of the cost, and as to public hospital coverage. That does not mean that all the services required by people in times of medical need are going to be covered by the basic cover. Indeed, there are many gaps in that, as we already know. The Government has encouraged us to take out private health insurance in order to cover those things not provided by Medicare. In relation to public hospital care we know that we have no choice of doctor. We can take only the doctor who is provided by the State hospital system. The fundamental element of freedom of choice that applied previously has been abolished. All of this has been brought to us by virtue of the impact of a one per cent tax levy, which will apparently be the contribution by individuals in place of what was previously paid in the form of health insurance. That one per cent levy on taxable income, which will affect everybody, is going to bring in some $1, 000m in a full financial year. One must consider what proportion of total health care costs will be covered by the levy. As the total cost of health care throughout the nation is in the region of $8,000m, clearly the levy, which will raise only $1,000m, will leave uncovered seven-eighths of the cost of health care. That $7,000m cost which will not be paid for by virtue of the levy must be found from other sources. Those other sources are the taxpayers of Australia. In other words, extra taxes will have to be exacted to cover the costs of health care as a result of Medicare. That is not the only source of the future cost of taxation. As we know from our experience during the period when Medibank applied, there will be increasing usage of the system and, consequently, the cost of health care will rise from that source as well. The cost to the individual will be felt most in the months ahead. One has only to be reminded of the Government's actions in May last year in the mini-Budget and later in the course of the introduction of the Budget itself. The Government abolished the tax rebate which was available to credit against health insurance costs, of which every family that paid health insurance had the benefit. In aggregate throughout Australia that rebate amounted to some $600m for Australian families. That rebate has now been abolished, and the cost will be borne by the community when people come to pay their taxes in the current financial year. In addition no longer will people be able to claim as tax rebates the cost comprising the gap between the full medical expenses and the claim made to Medicare. That also will be added to the total cost of health care. The Minister for Health said that as a result of Medicare two-thirds of Australians will pay less than they are now paying. If that is right-and we must take the Minister's word for it-it will leave only about half the population of Australia to pay more than is now being paid. The reason is that under the pre- medicare health arrangements some 20 percent of the population paid nothing. The people in that category were the very poor, pensioners, Aborigines or people generally classified as disadvantaged. Therefore, it can be readily understood that as a result of Medicare about half the Australian population will be paying more to meet total health insurance costs. This is quite contrary to the point made by the Government, in seeking to justify the introduction of Medicare, that it will be cheaper for everybody. The reason put forward, and the way in which it has been explained to the community, is that purely and simply people will only have to pay that one per cent levy. As we have demonstrated, that goes nowhere near meeting the total cost of the nationalised health insurance system. The rest will have to be found from taxation. On that basis the statement that it is to be a cheaper health insurance system is unjustified. There will also be effects in terms of equity on various groups. For instance, two-income families will pay twice the levy for the same level of health insurance which they might otherwise have received. People will not be able to arrange the insurance through their private health insurance companies to meet the gap between medical expenses and rebates available from Medicare. There is to be a ceiling of $150 on patient contribution for medical bills over a 12- month period. Presumably doctors will be encouraged to direct all their patients to the bulk billing system, but are to accept only 85 per cent of the scheduled fee as full payment. The point that arises is that there will be no freedom of choice for the patient to select his own doctor or a private hospital. Indeed, the system will work very much in favour of orienting people towards acceptance of public hospital facilities rather than the private hospital system. One must wonder what will be the effect of that if private hospitals go out of business, and the resulting pressure on the public hospital system will have to be met by the Federal Government. One can envisage the need for extensive capital expenditure to build new hospitals or perhaps to extend old ones to meet the extra costs. In addition to these items, and apart from the costs I have mentioned, people will need to insure themselves against all the ancillary medical costs that are not now covered in the basic insurance offered by Medicare. Indeed, people will need to buy that unsubsidised insurance at a deal of expense to themselves and their families. For those reasons there are extensive problems in the system that go to the core of the establishment of Medicare. The claims that it is both simple and equitable fall to the ground when one is aware that half the population-not some small proportion of relatively well off people-will pay more as a result of this new health insurance system There is no doubt that the system will promote a higher level of usage in the community, which can only lead to further costs and therefore to higher taxation . Many other problems associated with the new system will affect individuals. I have already dealt with a number of those matters. Perhaps one of the most significant is the question of simplicity, which again the Government claims will be one of the major features of the new system. As I have pointed out, instead of people being able to go to a one-shop health insurance company to cover all their needs for hospital, basic medical and ancillary insurance, they will now have to go to two shops. In fact, insurance for Medicare will cover only the most basic medical insurance. All other areas will have to be covered through a second private insurance operation. How can the claim of simplicity apply when there will be only 300 Medicare offices in Australia compared with the 1,000 private fund offices that are now operating? How will people be able to get quicker service through Medicare than that which they obtained through the private fund system? Obviously those people who are insured with Medicare and who live in remote areas will be severely disadvantaged. How can that be called either simple or equitable? It is pretty clear that even the lowest cost of private health insurance will amount to about $5 a week on top of the Medicare levy. That will have a significant impact on families. Perhaps in order to thoroughly understand what the Government is claiming in this matter we should examine what has happened in recent weeks in the processes adopted by the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, to implement the program of Medicare. Clearly he has been operating in cahoots with State Ministers in seeking to achieve the coercion of doctors to accept his system. This has been the case particularly in my State of South Australia in recent times when the State Minister for Health, Dr Cornwall, in a rather horrifying set of circumstances sought to bring to account one particular diagnostic specialist in Adelaide called Dr Peter Humble. We have seen the use of most extravagant and outrageous language against Dr Humble on the part of the State Minister in order to justify his particular stand and that of Dr Blewett against actions which Dr Humble himself thought were quite justified in withholding his services in a particular situation in Murray Bridge. I think that is one of those witch hunting situations that arise from time to time. It caused enormous concern in Adelaide at the time and caused the Adelaide News to write in its editorial as follows: What is beyond argument is that, in his intervention in the Medicare row, the Minister- that is, Mr Cornwall- was intemperate and displayed a startling lack of judgment. The article goes on to make the point that that was just part of a series of other misjudgments made by the Federal Minister, Dr Blewett, in regard to the implementation of the system. I finalise these remarks by referring to what has happened with nursing homes in recent months. The new Medicare arrangements have sought to change the funding arrangements for nursing homes and hostels. There has been a change from what was previously known as the 60-day rule to the 35-day rule. People who receive long term care can be insured only for a maximum period of 35 days. This has caused a great deal of very genuine confusion amongst families. Elderly folk who have been confined to hospitals for periods far longer than the 35 days have suddenly found themselves in need of a bed in an elderly person's hostel. Of course, these beds are not easily available. Indeed, there are considerable waiting lists for those beds. Yet there has been no flexibility on the part of Medicare beyond certain points to provide insurance for people in those circumstances. Indeed, people in very difficult situations have tried to find beds for elderly folk who, of course, beyond question are in great need. These people perhaps suffer from senility or are in very indigent circumstances and are unable to be moved very quickly to alternative accommodation. The assertions made in the matter of public importance put down for discussion today can be most clearly and substantially supported by the position of the elderly. The point is that the elderly have certainly not done well under Medicare and the arrangements which are flowing from it at present. As the people of Australia are now finding, Medicare will provide an alternative system of health insurance in this country with which very few people clearly identify. It is not something to which we are accustomed. It is aimed at the socialisation of health care in this country and it is creating unprecedented confusion and confrontation within the community. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(3.34) —I was absolutely amazed at the gall of Senator Messner in submitting this matter of public importance to the Senate for discussion. I will read the terms of the matter of public importance because it is important that we know what we are discussing. It states: The failure of the Minister of Health to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. I reject the word 'failure' in that matter of public importance. The MPI would have been much better if it had been submitted in this way: The congratulations due to the Minister for Health in honouring the Government' s commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. I waited for some time while Senator Messner was speaking to find out how he would support this matter of public importance. I waited in vain. I conjured up an image of a Scotsman trying to defend the abolition of bagpipes. It is necessary to look back to some aspects of health insurance in Australia over the past nine to 10 years if we are to discuss this matter of public importance. I go back to 1975 when the Labor Government was in power. At that time the Labor Party introduced the original Medibank scheme. Unfortunately for us as a party it was not introduced until mid-1975. Although it was not introduced until then, public acceptance of that scheme was quite evident within the first few months of operation. We know that at the end of 1975 we had a rather unusual election campaign. By that time the Labor Party was not in power and we had a caretaker Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. Mr Fraser knew how well accepted Medibank was at that stage and he very clearly said to the Australian people in his election campaign speech that he would maintain Medibank. Many of us can remember seeing him do this on television. I suppose some members opposite actually saw him make this promise in person. He said that he would maintain Medibank. The promise was not matched at all by performance. We know what happened after than. Medibank was emasculated over the years that followed and there was such a manipulation of health insurance schemes that people became confused. The only thing that was maintained was the name Medibank. It was maintained as a private health insurance scheme. While we were in opposition we were not prepared, as a Labor Party, to see health insurance in Australia go the way it did without putting up an alternative. While we were in opposition we planned a new scheme based on the previous Medibank. The new scheme, as we know, is known as Medicare. We put a lot of effort into the planning of the new scheme. During the planning stages it was obvious that a new health system for Australia was absolutely necessary. The Fraser Government had created chaos in our system of health care. There were continual changes leading to public confusion. There were five basic changes to the health insurance scheme in Australia under the Fraser Government. It became almost an annual ritual in this chamber to see a new change brought forward. I was here from 1975 and I remember that every year but one a new system of health insurance was introduced by the Fraser Government. No wonder the people were confused! The new system that we planned while in opposition was well publicised. Even before the early election was held in 1983 we publicised our system so that people would know exactly what we had in mind and they accepted what we had in mind. In the election campaign in 1983 we spelt it out in even greater detail. I will read parts of what was said in Mr Hawke's policy speech of 16 February 1983 . Under the heading 'Health' he outlined originally the unsatisfactory situation which existed early in 1983. One of the big factors in the decline of the living standards of Australian families over the last seven years has sprung from one of the most notorious of the Fraser Government's broken promises-the promise to maintain the universal health care system. There have been five confused and confusing schemes put in its place. It has reduced health care standards and directly raised inflation. Further, the Fraser Government has placed intolerable burdens on the hospital systems of the States. Then Mr Hawke went on to note what the Labor Government would do. He said: The Labor Government will return to the basic principle of the right of all Australians to health services according to their medical needs. He made some mention of the details of the proposed Medicare scheme. He said: Labor's new Medicare program involves simply the replacement of the present crippling health fund contributions by an income-related levy of one per cent on taxable income. It is history that the Australian Labor Party was elected to be the Government and the introduction of Medicare was put into its planning stages. On 1 February this year Medicare started to operate. Considering that this Government had been elected less than 12 months prior to the introduction of Medicare, it was a remarkable achievement by the Health Insurance Commission to get Medicare operating by 1 February. Credit should also be paid to the hard work and dedication of the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in getting Medicare up and running on 1 February. Now that Medicare is up and running-it has been up and running for nearly two months-it has been well accepted by the Australian people. There have been some teething problems but in general it has been running smoothly. One would almost expect that there would be some teething problems given the massive operation that is required in running Medicare. Six and a half million services were processed up until 26 March. Throughout Australia 265 offices are on line to the central computer in Canberra. In addition, there are 70 agencies. The level of payouts up until 21 March this year was $112m. When one has an operation such as that, I suppose there would be some teething problems, but these have been overcome and we now have a smoothly running scheme. Medicare is now in place. Despite what was said by Senator Messner, Medicare is a simple and fair scheme. Despite the urging of the Australian Medical Association, some medical practitioners do bulk bill their patients and these patients find that Medicare is an extremely simple system. The system contrasts with the schemes offered to the Australian people by the last Government. Those schemes were complex and inequitable. Those people who missed out on adequate health insurance and therefore adequate health care were the less affluent in the community. That situation has been overcome. I find that one disappointing aspect of Medicare is that some medical practitioners in Australia are simply not playing the game. I would like to mention some aspects of that. Medical practitioners, like most other people in the community, expect workers to receive only award wages-the wages that are awarded to them by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. However, apparently what is good for the workers is not good enough for some medical practitioners. They are willing to have their profession heavily subsidised while they are training as well as when they are in practice. We as a government are willing to provide that subsidisation. But some of the medical practitioners are not willing to curb the cost to their patients. I am not referring to all doctors but I am referring to a substantial proportion of them. Over the last couple of weeks I had a number of complaints referred to me about members of the medical profession charging above the schedule fee. Schedule fees are set by the Medical Benefits Fees Tribunal. Medical practitioners are able to argue their cases before the Tribunal. It is not compulsory for medical practitioners to limit their fees to the level set by the Tribunal but if they do not they cause difficulty for their patients. If they do not they are not taking the same action as they expect workers throughout Australia to take in regard to wage decisions awarded by a tribunal or a commission. Because of the complaints that I received, I undertook a survey last week of 70 general practitioners in the Brisbane and near Brisbane areas. The 70 general practitioners in the survey were chosen on a random basis. The survey threw up some interesting results. The schedule fee for a standard consultation in Queensland is $12. By a standard consultation I mean a consultation of 5 to 25 minutes. It is interesting to note that 73 per cent of the doctors in this survey charged above the schedule fee of $12 for a standard consultation. The average fee was $14 rather than $12. Fees of $14 were quite common. One doctor in the survey charged $16. It seems to me that it is obvious many medical practitioners do not realise that a visit to a doctor does not mean that the only expense is payment of the doctor's fee. Usually a visit to a pharmacist is required. Usually the cost of one national health script is an extra $4. Quite often one will go to a medical practitioner and then spend at least $10 at a pharmacy. These are the sorts of financial difficulties that people find when they go to a medical practitioner who charges well above the schedule fee and then have to go to a pharmacist to buy scripts costing at least $4 and perhaps up to $10. When I reported the results of this survey the President of the Australian Medical Association in Queensland, Professor David Wheedon, claimed that the survey was a waste of taxpayers' money. In fact, he said I was being mischievous . In my opinion the good professor was talking humbug. For Professor Wheedon's information, the survey cost less than $20 and was money well spent. If I have matters brought to my attention by my constituents I have every intention of investigating those matters. No senator worth his or her salt would be content simply to warm a seat in the Senate chamber and I do not intend to do that. The survey that I undertook was well worth while. Today I received a letter from the Secretary of the Metropolitan General Practitioners Group of the AMA in Queensland. As a copy of this letter has been sent to Dr Blewett and Mr Carlton I should not feel inhibited about mentioning it in part. It urged me not to stir up public opinion against general practitioners in future. For the Secretary's information, I do not stir up public opinion against general practitioners but if general practitioners are not prepared to play the game they will be responsible for the opinion that the public develops about doctors. I would like to look at that survey in another light. I have mentioned that 73 per cent of the doctors surveyed charged above the schedule fee. Looking at this matter in another light, it is significant that over one-quarter of those surveyed charged no more than the schedule fee. If they can do that, why cannot their peers? It is obvious that some medical practitioners, like some honourable senators opposite, do not want Medicare to be the success that it is. They will do everything they possibly can to scuttle the scheme which has now been well accepted by the Australian people. The matter of public importance which has been submitted to the Senate for discussion talks about the failure of the Minister for Health to do something. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, was a driving force when we were in opposition in having the scheme that is now called Medicare brought into the planning stages. He was certainly aided by a number of people in the Australian Labor Party, but without his driving force we probably would not have had it in a ready-to-go situation when we came into power. The matter of public importance talks about the Minister's failure to honour our commitment to introduce a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. The people of Australia are finding it a simple and fair scheme. The previous speaker in this debate, Senator Messner, made the claim that we said that the Medicare scheme would 'be cheaper for everybody'. We did not say that the scheme would be cheaper for everybody. We knew that it would be more expensive for people on high incomes. Why should not the scheme be more expensive for persons on incomes like mine and those of honourable senators opposite? Why should it not be more expensive for those who have very high incomes? It certainly is more expensive for me and for those opposite. But we did not say that the scheme would be cheaper for everybody. It is misleading to say so. For the majority of people it is a better scheme in terms of financial consideration. All people find it simple and fair. What is inequitable about making those on higher incomes pay more than those on lower incomes? There is nothing inequitable about that: there is nothing unfair about it. The matter of public importance that was put to the Senate for discussion talks about the failure of the Minister for Health to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme which is both simple and fair. That is absolutely absurd. I repeat that I reject the suggestion of failure. I suggest that the matter before us should have read: 'The congratulations due to the Minister for Health in honouring the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair'. Debate interrupted. Notice of Motion Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-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 amend certain Acts in consequence of the establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor. Debate resumed. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(3.54) —Following the insertion of that matter by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) I had better make it quite clear that we are still pursuing a matter of public importance that relates not to legal matters but to the failure or otherwise of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. Of course, one is forced, when confronted with a matter of public importance phrased in this way to ask: Simple and fair compared with what? I suggest that it would be a useful exercise to compare the simplicity and fairness of the currently operating system, the system which has been operating since 1 February with other systems preceding it . Let us compare, for example, the simplicity and fairness of a system which offers universality-in fact it insists on universality-of health insurance for basic health care with the system which previously operated which allowed the young and the healthy to elect to opt out of the system forcing the premiums to be raised for those who elected to take the socially responsible attitude of taking out private health insurance. Premiums therefore went up for those with chronic illnesses, those with young children, those who were elderly and who faced a period of their lives in which ill health was almost a matter of course. Let us compare the simplicity and fairness of a system which offers payment according to means and payment which is adjusted according to family size with the previously existing system which offered certainly the pensioner health benefit card and the disadvantaged persons health care card for those who were under a certain level of income but which had attendant anomalies because of the absolute cut-off limit on incomes relating to the possession of those two cards. Let us compare the simplicity and fairness of a system which operates under a one per cent levy with one which previously operated under a 2.5 per cent levy. Let us compare the simplicity and fairness of a system which offers health care to all with a system which, wittingly or not, often meant that access to health care was income linked. Contrary to Senator Messner's assertion a moment ago, Medicare still offers a choice between public and private health care, although I must admit that had it not been for the concessions wrung from the Government last year between June and September this may well not have been the case. Certain elements of paranoia were very visible during those months. Nevertheless, persistent negotiations and discussions managed to assuage as many of those as possible. I have to say, however, that all of that eventuated with precious little help from the Opposition. One was forced to wonder during the parliamentary recess last year when most of those negotiations were going on between the Minister, the Australian Medical Association, the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia, the private hospital associations and other interested groups where the health spokesman of the Liberal Party was. I got involved in those discussions from choice. That choice I would have thought was open to any member of the Liberal Party who wanted to find out what were the needs of the medical profession, the private health insurance funds, the private hospital sector and, not least, the Minister. The concessions achieved last year were achieved because of those discussions and negotiations. They were significant and they significantly improved the fairness and simplicity of the legislation. Although, as Senator Messner pointed out, people do not have a choice-I regret this very much indeed and I made this point last year-between taking out basic health insurance through a levy or with a private health insurance fund at least we were able to prevent the worst excesses of two-stop shopping by getting a concession from the Minister that people could at least drop off their Medicare forms at the private health insurance fund from which they were to get the rest of their rebate. We were able to get a significant concession for the chronically ill although, again, I must say that it was not as good as we had hoped for. We were able to ensure that constraints applied to the operations of Medibank Private which limited the damage that that fund could have done to the private health insurance funds. For example, they were prevented from piggybacking on Medicare advertisements, they were prevented from sharing the running costs with Medicare and limits were placed on their State by State contributor numbers. In addition, we managed through these negotiations to get for the private health insurance funds an extension of their business role from merely handling health insurance to venturing out into other areas that took their fancy. I supported measures put forward by the Liberal Party in September relating to the need for consultation between the Australian Medical Association and the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee and I supported a reduction in hospital stay hours from 12 hours to eight hours before the bed day subsidy was paid. This could have led to significant unfairness when it came to people who used dialysis machines, for instance, or children who required short term hospitalisation. There are elements of Medicare with which we are not happy. I referred to one a moment ago when I said that there is no option, as there was, for instance, between 1976 and 1978, for an individual to take out a basic health insurance via either a private fund or through the levy. There is no gap insurance. As I said a moment ago, the cut-off point for the chronically ill is too high. There is no provision in basic health care for alternative health care services such as chiropractic care, podiatry, acapuncture and even psychology. Being an eternal optimist, I live in hope that these impediments can be the subject of negotiation in future budgetary discussions. Maybe then the remaining inequities will be corrected. An area in which there is some unfairness, which I understand was not intended by the Minister and which I think is still able to be corrected, was drawn to my attention today. I refer to the failure of the Health Insurance Commission in Queensland to honour one of the Minister's promises. On 13 August last year the Minister for Health gave the following assurance to Senator Kathy Martin: . . . if people want to move out of the private health funds in February or March 1984, they will be able to do so and take up employment with the Commission. That was an unequivocal statement. In a letter I received today from the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia, it is asserted: . . . the Health Insurance Commission has recruited staff on a permanent basis when under the terms of the agreement with the Government up to 247 HIC jobs in Queensland were to be reserved within the special preference arrangement for Health Fund staff. Thus any recruitment of non-Fund staff for these positions should have been on a temporary contract basis. These arrangements were entered into because it was clearly necessary for the Funds to retain staff in the lead up to the introduction of Medicare, and the weeks immediately after it to meet the heavy volume of claims during this period . I suggest that this action taken by the Health Insurance Commission in Queensland, which is totally at odds with the assurance the Minister gave Senator Martin last year, must be corrected if the Minister's credibility level is to rate above zero. Finally, I turn to the question of unfairness raised by Senator Baume this morning in relation to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, that is, unfairness relating to contracts for medical specialists treating private patients in public hospitals. The Opposition has certainly not helped simplify this problem in recent months. For instance, Senator Jessop has written a number of letters to newspapers, confusing the regulations relating to section 17 with appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Senator Jessop —One letter. Senator HAINES —I correct that, he has written one letter but he sent it to a number of newspapers. I suggest it amounts to the same thing. There is no connection between putting guidelines into regulations and providing a form of parliamentary scrutiny and appeal and enabling a doctor or group of doctors to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, something which clearly is hardly valid in an area where State governments, the Federal Government, private specialists, public hospitals and patients are all somewhat inextricably mixed together. The very best that could happen is that somebody could appeal to the AAT against the inappropriate use of the guidelines. Certainly there could not be an appeal against the guidelines themselves. Senator Baume has done a fast double backflip on the significance of having guidelines put in the form of regulations from the stand he took last year when he asserted, as the Opposition spokesperson on health asserted only within the last couple of weeks, that had the guidelines been placed in the form of a regulation and accepted by the Minister, the current dispute would not have occurred. Instead, he has now decided that that was an inadequate measure, although it was a measure he put forward, and that we now require the total repeal of the section. I suggest that in doing so he has effectively confused what the real issue is as far as the medical profession is concerned. To clarify the situation for Senator Baume, I refer to a letter written recently to all major newspapers in Australia by the Chairman of the Victorian State Committee of the Australian Association of Surgeons. He says, in part: The Basic Problems with Section 17 are: 1. The Federal Minister for Health may, by writing to a doctor, add to or delete from a previous or future agreement between the doctor and his Public Hospital, and thus destroy the contract. No negotiation is entailed. 2. The Minister is not supervised by Parliament in acting as in 1. The letter goes on: No self respecting individual or community group can accept such blatant discrimination against their right to understand and negotiate their conditions of work, and in this we feel we are fighting for all ACTU members, other unions and non unionists, as well as ourselves. All other issues are peripheral to this perceived threat to the whole medical profession, and indeed the whole community, if the principle of the present legislation is accepted. Once such loss of the right to participate in determining one's work conditions happens to one group in a community democracy itself is under threat. I have no quarrel with that at all. I have said publicly that no group would tolerate this. It was for that reason that I put forward the suggestion that section 17 of the Health Insurance Act be amended so that the guidelines the Minister comes up with are put in the form of a regulation. That would ensure that specialists with private patients in a public hospital were not placed in a position which no other group in the community would tolerate. They would no longer be expected to face the prospect of having draconian or unacceptable terms and conditions forced on them or of having their terms and conditions of employment altered by ministerial decree alone at any time in the future. In addition to removing the present unfettered powers of the Minister, the amendment provides for parliamentary scrutiny and debate and would ensure that the Minister will undertake prior consultation with the profession. Clearly, if he wants to get a particular measure through he will have to do that. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that the passage in 1983 of an amendment to have guidelines treated as regulations would have prevented the dispute occurring in the first place and then turn around, as Senator Baume did this morning, and say that its passage in 1984 would not be sufficient to resolve the dispute. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(4.10) —I join this debate with some interest because I believe it is a very important subject. I note that Senator Haines, who has just resumed her seat, indicated that she had become involved with the medical profession. She is obviously overcome with a desire to become the saviour of Medicare and the champion of the medical profession. That is fairly typical of the Australian Democrats. They thrash around trying to get sectional support from any section of the community. Yet when the Opposition attempted to amend the legislation to accommodate some of the complaints put forward by the medical profession the Democrats went to water and failed to support the Opposition's moves in that direction. I have no time for the Australian Democrats who have displayed tremendous ignorance with respect to this subject. The first national health scheme was introduced in the 1950s by Sir Earle Page. I think we should have persisted with the philosophy of that type of scheme. It offered the opportunity for people to join health funds. It was based on private enterprise health funds. When I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966 my criticism was that the Government of the day did not do sufficient to encourage the amalgamation of some of the smaller health funds so that we could reduce their numbers. I believe that had that been done the private health insurance base would have been sustained. The objective, of course, was to enable medical services to be provided to the needy in our community and also, for those who could afford to pay, to preserve a freedom of choice which I believe is most important with respect to medical services in Australia. Then along came the Whitlam Government. It introduced Medibank, which was a step towards the nationalisation of medicine. It destroyed the altruism of the medical profession and other professions which cared to have regard for the position of some of their patients. Some of them refused to charge for their services. I think that is an unhappy situation. However, we are saddled with that situation now. This move by the Government is another step towards nationalised medicine. It calls it by a different name-that is, Medicare. A lot of people refer to it as Medi-scare. Senator Messner —Or Medi-evil. Senator JESSOP —Medi-evil is an appropriate additional comment. I think it is consistent with the socialist Government's objective to destroy the private health insurance funds. I cannot see how the private insurance funds can remain in business by being able to provide just ancillary services for their members and also some private hospital bed assistance. The objective is to destroy the private health insurance funds. Medicare is a major step towards the total nationalisation of medicine. It is quite clear that it is the Government's almost paranoid intention to force doctors to bulk bill. That seems to be the trend. Senator Crowley —Paranoid intention? Senator JESSOP —Of course it is. The Government wants every doctor in Australia to bulk bill. The Government is doing that very cunningly. It is making it more difficult for doctors and patients under this scheme because of the scarcity of Medicare offices. In South Australia, for example, the nearest Medicare office from where I live is almost a day's march. People are finding that their doctors are not bulk billing. I have a daughter who has four children. These young children frequently need to see the doctor. My daughter went to the doctor the other day because one of her children had a broken leg. She found she had to pay about $4. The rest, of course, was taken care of by Medicare. When that occurs with young families parents will say that perhaps they should find a doctor who bulk bills. Senator Crowley —Hear, hear, to all the points you have raised, Senator. Senator JESSOP —That is exactly the paranoia that exists in the minds of the socialist Government that we have in Australia. The intention of the Government is to destroy freedom of choice, to force doctors to bulk bill and to overcrowd public hospitals. In that way the Government is making the same mistakes that have been made in the United Kingdom and in Canada. There will be a long queue of people waiting for years for elective surgery. Senator Crowley, who is a member of the medical profession which no doubt would be ashamed of her, seems to be nodding her head. She seemed to nod it when I said there will be a queue of people waiting for years before elective surgery will be able to be obtained. That is an indictment of the Government and will result in a lowering of the quality of health care in this country. Another matter of concern is the computerised system of scrutinising medical practices and other professions throughout Australia. The big brother syndrome is creeping in. A doctor friend of mine has a large number of pensioner patients , many of whom are confined to their homes. They are not required to go to hospital at this time. A lot of them are virtually housebound. This doctor visits patients once or twice a month to check blood pressures and urine samples and to prescribe drugs which are required to sustain these people and keep them out of hospitals, which is a saving to the taxpayer. However, big brother in the form of the Commonwealth Department of Health tapped him on the shoulder the other day and said: 'You are visiting your pensioner patients in their homes at a rate of 60 per cent home visitation. The average is 50 per cent'. Senator Crowley —Tut, tut! Senator JESSOP —Senator Crowley can tut, tut. She does not care about the wellbeing of the pensioner patients who, through ill health, are confined to their homes. She would rather see them flood into the hospitals and leave their happy domestic environments. She wants to force patients into hospitals, which definately contributes to overcrowding. A lot of people look at doctors as perhaps they look at members of parliament and say that they are more affluent than most other sections of the community. However, a lot of people forget that doctors, for the most part, are fairly small businessmen. They have to employ staff, they have to pay rent and motor car expenses. They have to pay those normal expenses associated with small businesses. Another point of concern is that the Government keeps doctors waiting for up to four months-I heard the other day that that is a conservative estimate, that it usually is about six months-for payments. As an example I cite the case of a practice in Hobart which a month or so ago was waiting for payment of a bill for about $85,000 that had been rendered to the Commonwealth Department. The bill had accumulated over a period. That is another point that ought to be remembered by the socialist Administration which is languishing on the Treasury benches at the moment. Senator Watson —Languishing? Senator JESSOP —Languishing. What word would the honourable senator use? Is it languishing or just laying back and watching the public of Australia being taken down the garden path, the path to economic chaos? The type of health care scheme that is envisaged by this Government has been a disaster not only in the United Kingdom but also in Canada. The legislation which has been put in train by the Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett-he is not a medical doctor-gives him unfettered power, without the right of appeal, to insert any restrictive clause he chooses into long-standing terms and conditions of service negotiated in good faith between doctors and State hospital authorities. The Minister, under some pressure from sections of the community, did retreat to a degree and agreed that perhaps a public inquiry should be held into the argument that was raging between him and the profession. I believe it is fair to suggest that the Australian Medical Association should have been consulted much more effectively before the introduction of this measure. That seems to me to make a mockery of Mr Hawke's so-called consensus government. It seems to me to be an unhappy situation at the moment in that radiologists and others are forced to take a stand in the long term interests of the patients and the health and welfare of this country. I believe it is a sad day for the people of Australia. We hear talk about contractual arrangements with doctors treating patients in public hospitals. I know many radiologists and other specialists who treat patients in public hospitals. To my knowledge all of them are sticking with the schedule fee. In fact, some of them charge less. Only yesterday I heard that a considerable proportion of their fee is paid for the use of equipment in public hospitals. The figure of 64 per cent was mentioned to me only yesterday. I think that the Government ought to be ashamed of itself for introducing this scheme in February when the groundwork had not been done properly. Obviously the doctors were unhappy. As a result we see chaos reigning in Australia at the moment. I sincerely hope that the dispute will resolve itself quickly. It is in the best interests of the Australian public that that occurs. I suggest that the Government would have been wise if it had accepted the amendments that we put forward in September in an attempt to meet the problems that were being demonstrated by the medical profession. I think it is an unhappy state of affairs that the Australian Democrats did not support our moves to satisfy the difficulties that apparently were prevailing. Senator HAINES(South Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator claim that something she said in her speech has been misunderstood or misrepresented? Senator HAINES —No, I am referring to a vote that took place last year. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If the honourable senator wishes to make a personal explanation in relation to something other than what she said, she requires leave. Leave granted. Senator HAINES —I rise more in sorrow than in anger to point out that Senator Jessop's comments with regard to the Australian Democrats' voting pattern on this amendment last year are incorrect. I know that Senator Jessop has never been one to let facts get in the way of a good argument. I suggest that if he turns to page 913 of Senate Hansard of 21 September 1983 he will notice my name several spaces above his own name in the ayes column. Senator JESSOP(South Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I wish to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented? Senator JESSOP —Yes. I object to the words that were used by Senator Haines when she said that I never let facts interfere with a debate. I said that the Australian Democrats were responsible for not passing a particular amendment. That was quite correct. I concede that Senator Macklin and Senator Haines voted with us on one of the amendments, but they all voted against the next one. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(4.25) — If the squabble opposite has settled down I will make my contribution to the debate on this matter of public importance. Having listened to Senator Messner and Senator Jessop I simply fail to understand what they were talking about. The Opposition has put up a matter of public importance in these terms: The failure of the Minister of Health to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. Senator Messner and Senator Jessop spent their time arguing that we have instituted a national health insurance scheme. So at least two-thirds of the Opposition's matter of public importance is, out of their own mouths, affirmed. I guess it could be argued that they feel the point of difference is that the scheme is not simple and fair, but from their contribution to the debate one would never know that. I would suggest that Senator Messner, who was the first speaker on this matter of public importance, clearly does not recognise what is simple or fair when he sees it. I will go on to argue that quite clearly the Opposition does not even recognise a scheme when it sees it, unless it is scheming. I think that is a terribly important point. The Opposition is devoid of any proposals in the health insurance area. When in government it spent its time dismantling and rearranging schemes, making promises and breaking them. I could hardly expect it to know a scheme, much less a simple and fair one, if it came across it, which is why I think it has put up this matter of public importance. Members of the Opposition are condemned by their own words as being unable to see the truth when it is in front of them. The Medicare scheme is a simple and fair one. Quite clearly, it is a universal scheme. It covers every Australian. It is a matter of considerable success for the Government that now, under the Medicare scheme, every Australian is covered for health costs. That certainly compares very well with the situation that existed before this Government came to office. Under the previous scheme at least two million Australians were uninsured. Many of those people chose not to be insured because they simply could not afford the private insurance fees, even for basic cover. It is claimed that some of those people preferred not to be insured; they preferred to risk their good health. They gambled about their own health. When the gamble failed for some of those people they were in for terrible medical expenses. For whatever reason, some two million Australians were previously uninsured. Now they are covered by this simple, fair and universal system. Both Senator Messner and Senator Jessop have claimed, almost ad nauseam, that under this scheme one is not free to choose one's doctor. That again betrays their remarkable lack of understanding of what the Medicare scheme is about. People are continuing to go to their own general practitioners as they always have. They can choose their own doctor. They can continue to see their own doctor. There is nothing in the Medicare scheme that requires that situation to be changed. The point of difference is about private doctors in private hospitals; it has nothing to do with the bulk of doctor-patient relationships which occur in the general practice area. As I have said, those relationships remain as they were. The difference is that 85 per cent of the schedule fee of the cost of a visit to the doctor is covered by Medicare; that is all. There is no interference in that area in the right of people to choose their own doctor. With those kinds of comments both Senator Jessop and Senator Messner betray their remarkable ignorance of the scheme. What has happened in the area of general practice? I think it is fair to say-I support very much what Senator Colston had to say in this area-that since Medicare has been introduced some doctors have gone like hell to increase their fees well above the schedule fee, thus causing an increased payment by a patient for a visit to a general practitioner. It is very interesting to see the campaigns now being waged as people realise that it is not Medicare that is interfering with their health system, it is not Medicare that is interfering with their right to see the doctor of their choice and it is not Medicare that is increasing the costs; it is the medical practitioners who are upping their fees arbitrarily and without any recourse to tribunals that set schedule fees. It is a willy-nilly, arbitrary 'I will get more if I can and 85 per cent of that basic schedule fee will be returned by the Government, but I will not tell the patients what I am doing as I do not respect them enough for that'. I regard that kind of interesting contract between doctors and patients as a complete lie to the medical profession's general claim that it wants the right to have some kind of special contractual arrangement with patients. If that is the case, why are those doctors not explaining to patients that they have increased their general practice visit fees by the amounts that they have. It is very well documented in areas of South Australia and, as Senator Colston said, it is clearly the case in some areas in Queensland too. I have it on fair understanding that it is across the country in some areas but I do not have the documented evidence to support that claim. Another remark I have heard from honourable senators opposite is that under Medicare people will have to use the free public hospital system and they will have no choice of doctor, as though somehow the medical profession working in public hospitals is second class, awful or a kind of group to be doubted. The majority of public hospitals in this country are at pains to protect their reputation and to provide excellent care for the patients who go into those hospitals. They appoint the most competent doctors. Appointments to public hospitals are not only sought after but also fought over. It is ridiculous to think that the doctors in public hospitals are less than competent. They may in fact charge less. In fact, under Medicare no charge by those doctors will be directed to the patients. We need to be quite clear on that. As I understand it, the majority of Australians would prefer to go to a public hospital for any matter of serious medical consideration. People requiring open heart surgery, intensive care, after-coronary care, renal units and long term fracture management go to public hospitals. It is also important to note that, when people go to private hospitals and anything goes wrong in the medical area, those patients are transferred as quickly as possible to the largest and nearest public hospital where the most adequate and competent medical services prevail. It is a nonsense and scaremongering on the part of the Opposition to keep putting up these false arguments, these furphies. It betrays not only the Opposition's lack of understanding of the Medicare system but also its lack of understanding for the people of Australia. It is a very fair system. People pay one per cent of their income according to their means. Those who have more income will pay more; those who have less will pay less. Couples who earn below $214 a week and single persons who earn below $128 a week pay nothing. Unlike the previous scheme, above those cutoff points the levy is phased in even before the full one per cent is required to be paid. It is a very fair system. I do not know what honourable senators opposite think fair means but I think to them it means a fair go for open slather for those medical people supporting them. That is not my understanding of fair. Fair and equitable mean that all Australians have access to medical services according to their ability to pay-and good medical services at that. I have heard it argued by Senator Messner that people are now worse off than they were previously. If one earns $500 a week, buys private insurance and private extras insurance, one probably pays the same amount as was previously paid for basic health insurance. I suppose it could be argued that if one earns $500 a week, that is a bit rough. However, there are many people in the community who do not even get within cooee of $500 a week and who would be very prepared to contribute their $5 a week Medicare levy from that salary or income. I agree heartily with Senator Colston's claim that it is equitable for those in our community who earn more or are able to achieve more to pay more. That is also what equity means. The arguments put by Senator Messner were not only misleading but also basically wrong. Again, I do not think he has understood the figures or has a basic understanding of what the Medicare provisions are. Another very important thing about Medicare that contributes to its simpleness and its fairness is the centralised computer within the Health Insurance Commission. There is one computer now. It is very interesting to hear the Opposition's arguments against the introduction of the Medicare computer within the Health Insurance Commission and its complaints about the loss of jobs and so on, yet it happily ignored what happened to people from Medibank when the previous Government dismantled the Medibank setup and the Medibank computer. According to the Health Insurance Commission report this year, some 2,400 jobs were lost at that time, and a further 400 from within the Health Insurance Commission. I do not remember hearing Liberal senators or members at that stage complain bitterly about the loss of jobs which they were creating. I find their arguments on behalf of the poor working people at this stage without substance. I find it difficult to take their case to heart. Besides, in South Australia, where the Health Insurance Commission and the private health funds have been at pains to be reasonable, talk to each other and work things out, at the last count I believe only one job had been lost. The other important thing about a central computer and a central collection of data is that there will be much better epidemiological information for the whole of Australia, for people in the planning and research areas and for the people trying to administer health services in this country to the best advantage of all Australians. It will also provide a much better brake and check on medifraud . I understand from recent figures that the previous estimate of $100m for medical fraud is probably a very conservative estimate; the figure is now put at nearer $200m. I guess 100 per cent error is tolerated in this area, but it indicates that some of our medical colleagues are not exactly playing fair. If they are the people whom members of the Opposition supports, I simply say again that their definition of fair is not mine. It is very important that medical fraud be pursued. I would have thought that was the view of most Australians. The simplicity that goes with the centralised data collection of Medicare will advantage and make that more likely. The complexities, which I presume are the opposite pole of a simple system, do not belong with Medicare and ought not to be sheeted home to it. They are the problems of private funds and the many choices people will have to make when they work out which fund, which table, how much and so on. The other part of the confusion is the doctor engendered confusion and the Opposition engendered confusion about private practice in public facilities. The debate over the last few weeks has become disgraceful not only because of the emotionalism and all of those things that the medical profession claims it does not say but also because of the very wrong information which has been given to Australians so that, if they were not confused beforehand, they certainly are now. By and large the issue of the right to private practice in public hospitals and the requirement of the Federal Government not to put any guidelines into contractural arrangements between hospitals and doctors has been grossly misrepresented. It has also been seen as though it represents the view of all doctors in the community. I understand from contacts of mine that it does not even represent the view of all members of the Australian Medical Association. There is considerable embarrassment among the medical profession about how that campaign is being run. I turn now to the other side of why the Opposition can put up such a simplistic and puerile matter of public importance as it has today. It is because it could not recognise a good system if it saw one. The other corollary to this is that it does not have one of its own. The principal health policy of the Opposition is to dismantle anything that the Labor Government does. We have even had a difference of opinion between Opposition Leader Peacock and Mr Carlton about whether the Opposition would or would not fully or only in part dismantle Medicare. Some say they would and some say they would not and even amongst themselves they cannot agree. Certainly, the Opposition is not sure when it would do it, if it decided to do it. Given that kind of coherent approach to things it is no wonder that Opposition senators put up such a daft debate as they have put before us today. I have a letter which was sent by Opposition Leader Peacock to all doctors, and which has been mentioned before in the Senate. His mailing system did not blink me out of the system so I was a recipient of this glorious letter. The thing that really strikes me about the letter is how Mr Peacock argued that first of all what his Government will do is to provide the best health care for individuals by removing 'the Big Brother intrusion of government into the practice of medicine'. There is a monumentally comprehensive health policy. I do not believe the Opposition has anything more to say than 'If you do, we will oppose it'. It is nothing more than the 1975 commitment-'We promise to keep Medibank, but the minute we are in power we will dismantle it'. I do not believe Australians have any reason to trust the Opposition. I do not believe they have any reason to trust that it will provide health care. It has had five schemes under Mr Fraser, none of which improved on what went before, but which did manage to get two million Australians uninsured. Medicare is simple, fair, equitable and is covering all Australians. It is all the things that the Opposition claims it is not. That is why the Opposition is protesting so loudly. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(4.41) —We are discussing the failure of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. I think it is reasonable, in discussing this, to look at some of the reasons why consumers, constituents of ours, are finding Medicare confusing and difficult to live with and why they are not finding it either simply or fair. We can start by looking at who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this scheme. That, of course, starts prior to this Government being elected, when it was suggested that nine out of 10 Australians would pay no more than under the present system. During the 1983 election policy speech, which Senator Colston quoted at some length earlier, it was also said by Mr Hawke: It will mean that nine out of ten Australians will pay less for the health needs of themselves and their families. That was on 16 February 1983. Dr Blewett took a slightly more conservative view when he discussed the matter on 21 February 1983, in saying: . . . even when you allow for the rebate, everyone, something like three out of four persons, will by paying less . . . However, he had another rethink and on 24 May 1983 he said: Nine out of ten Australian families will, from 1 February 1984, actually pay less, or no more, for their basic medical and health insurance. But again he returned to the 70 per cent, and by August of 1983 he said: . . . 70 per cent of Australian families would be better off under Medicare . . . But it took a bit of a dive during September when he said: After allowing for two income families, it is still the case that two out of three Australian families . . . will therefore pay less for this level of cover under Medicare . . . One wonders, of course, when the figures finally become known, whether in fact it will be significantly more than 50 per cent at all. The Bulletin referred to this in an edition of 19 April of this year when it stated: Hawke's '90 percent' became '75 percent' in remarks made by Blewett during the election campaign and that has now become 'most'. Soon it will be 'some'. With those sorts of figures and that indication of the Government's ability in mathematics it is not surprising that people are confused as to what the scheme is about. It was suggested by the Minister for Health in his second reading speech in support of the legislation and in referring to the one per cent levy: Every Australian resident will be covered automatically and the one per cent payment will be made along with, but separately identified from, the tax instalments in the weekly or fortnightly pay packet. There has been plenty of time to put that into effect. We were assured by Senator Colston, when he was praising Dr Blewett for this scheme, that it was a ready-to-go situation when Labor came into power. Perhaps the Minister representing the Minister for Health, the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) will be able to explain when he speaks in this debate subsequently why this has not occurred. It has just been lumped into the taxation deduction. A letter I received from the Clerk of the Senate attaching my pay advice stated: Dear Senator Attached is your payslip for February 1984 which reflects an increase of one percent in your deductions for taxation due to the introduction of Medicare from 1 February 1984. My electorate secretary's payslip of 22 March 1984 shows her salary and shows a deduction for tax. It shows no amount for the Medicare levy whatever. I would like to know why it is that the Minister for Health assured this population that the Medicare levy would be shown separately, that it was not part of the tax system, yet in fact that turns out now to be the case. I am pleased to know that Senator Crowley does admit that it is a nationalisation of medicine that the Government has embarked upon and that she is glad that we recognise it. Senator Crowley —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I intervene here and draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that I did not ever use the word 'nationalisation'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Elstob) —Senator Crowley, you can claim to have been misrepresented afterwards. I call Senator Reid. Senator REID —There is no doubt that the intention of the Government is to nationalise medicine and it is setting itself along this path. What other explanation could it possibly give for refusing to allow people the right to insure against the 15 per cent gap? The Government talks about fees being fixed, the schedule fee and the requirement of doctors to stick to the schedule fee, but it chops 15 per cent off it by trying to force doctors into bulk billing. I cannot think of any explanation in relation to section 17 contracts other than that the Government is trying to insist that the doctors become its employees and do not in fact have the same relationship with their patients as they have in the past. The 15 per cent gap I think is one of the very significant aspects. In referring to it in his second reading speech Dr Blewett said: Therefore, if we allowed gap insurance we would not be saving people money. He also said, in referring to gap insurance: . . . So overall most people are financially better off without gap insurance. He does not concede in any way that people should be allowed a choice in this area, that they should be allowed to cover for this if they wish to do so. He will determine what they will have and the way it will function. There has been discussion today in Question Time in this chamber about the failure to return receipts to those who own them. I suggest that receipts are the property of the persons who have paid the money, and that they are entitled to receive them back. They may well require them for the purpose of an income tax deduction or to check on when they have reached the $150 limit. I think it is unrealistic to expect that people will keep comprehensive records of these things. Customarily it is the receipt for anything that we are used to retaining to know exactly where we stand in these matters. I think it is worth looking at Dr Blewett's answer to a question on 7 March in relation to this to understand precisely what the Government has in mind. He said: Let me first of all explain to the House why we made the decision not to return account documents. The first reason for that is simply that the opportunities for account manipulation which have been identified in the past would not be possible if the documents were not retained. The second reason is that we need to have an effective pursuit of fraud and overservicing. It is quite clear that the Government regards all doctors as crooks. No one can deny that there has been medifraud and that those who have been involved should be caught up with and dealt with. But I wonder whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proved guilty. Medicare has the claim form in relation to which the receipt was presented. All the information which Medicare needs to keep track of this can be kept. I would have thought it would have been put into this very expensive computer system that has been purchased, or does Medicare seriously have clerks sitting there all day thumbing through receipts just in case there has been overservicing or something? It is an absolute nonsense to suggest that that is done from the receipts. It would be done from the information that is fed into the computer. Dr Blewett, in the same answer in referring to receipts, said: First, we arranged with the Australian Taxation Office that everybody could claim from Medicare at the end of the financial year a full printout of all their payments and this would be acceptable to the Taxation Office when people made their claims. I wonder how much that will cost and how long it will take to get these forms out to every taxpayer at the end of the year, to those who have been deprived of their receipts, who have been deprived of the means of checking themselves. Most of them probably do not need this information if the truth be known. How much is it going to add to Medicare to provide this service, which would not be needed if receipts were returned at the end of the financial year? I suggest that it is a most expensive exercise and totally unnecessary if the receipt is given back to its rightful owner. The Minister concluded his answer to the question by saying: Last week we instructed the Health Insurance Commission to provide receipts to cash claimers who requested them. A notice to that effect will be put in Medicare offices. I hope within a fortnight those receipts will be available with cash claims. I do not see why it should apply only to cash claims, although I understand the greater necessity in that regard. I hope the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) will say whether that is being done and whether people can get them back, or will they still have to ask for them? I refer to the $150 limit one may pay before one reaches the area where Medicare will then refund 100 per cent of the schedule fee for the rest of the year. There was without doubt in this community a general understanding that it applied to the Medicare card. That meant it applied, for example, to the wife and all children who were listed on it. The fact is that it applies per patient. I do not suggest that the Government has put out anything which is deliberately misleading, but I do not believe that the advertising has been sufficiently straightforward for people to understand that it relates to each patient and not to the Medicare card. One of the most serious consequences of Medicare is the intrusion into that precious relationship between a person and his or her medical adviser. I refer to the lack of confidentiality that now exists as a result of these requirements . Previously a doctor would issue an account which gave an indication of the type of service by reference to a number and the claim had to be lodged in accordance with the approved form. That has changed in that now there must be the scheduled number on the account but, in addition, a brief description of the service. No longer does one have the same relationship of confidentiality between patient and doctor, a relationship which I believe the community has treasured for a long time. People regard the relationship as a basic entitlement allowing for a confidential relationship between themselves and their medical advisers. In a country town which has no Medicare office a patient would take his account to the local post office. That account would show fully on the face of it exactly what it is one has been seeing one's doctor about. Everybody else who handles the account would know why the person concerned has been to the doctor, whereas previously the number indicating the type of consultation did not disclose such information. The new system will significantly erode that important factor of the private and confidential nature of the relationship between doctor and patient. Big brother will now not tolerate such a relationship and wants to know it all. This is a strange attitude coming from a government from which we have heard so much about privacy over the years. Its chief law officer in particular speaks of it frequently-particularly frequently in these last few weeks. In a censure debate on 7 March the Attorney-General said he still possessed a respect for privacy. In the same debate he said, referring to the tape matter, that 'it is illegal; it invades privacy'. In a ministerial statement on 28 February on the same matter the word 'privacy' was referred to on no fewer than six occasions. On the following day in Question Time again the word 'privacy' was used in answer to questions. In relation to the Age tapes that word came up in just about every answer, and so it has gone on. The Attorney-General speaks of the private relationship of legal professional privilege. I wonder why the Government does not have the same regard for the privileged relationship between patient and doctor in this other area. Why is a different view taken on the question of privacy when it is applied to a judge, of whom the Attorney-General thinks so highly, as he has made plain, but a total strangulation of privacy when it comes to the bulk of the population and Medicare? The subject of privacy comes up frequently. It was referred to in the Law Reform Commission report, and the Attorney-General's response to that report dealt glowingly with the threats to privacy, ranging from the powers of public officials to intrude into the lives and property of the individual to the challenges posed by the new information technology. I wonder why there cannot be the same regard for privacy in this area. One other aspect to which I wish to refer briefly is the question of cover for people going overseas. I do not believe it has been made widely known that the same sort of cover which existed under the scheme previously through the private funds is available under Medicare. People going overseas from this country now need to examine carefully their position if they become ill while abroad. They need to obtain good advice so that they do not finish up in an unfortunate financial position. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.55) —In speaking on this motion I shall come to the specific items mentioned by the shadow Minister, Senator Messner, but I wish first to take up a number of points made by Senator Reid. In raising these matters it is clear that Senator Reid does not understand the situation either as it now exists or previously. She may have unwittingly-I am sure unwittingly-put fears in the minds of patients, particularly on the subject of privacy. As Senator Reid said, an account is submitted on which is an item number, that being a number on the schedule referring to the list of schedule items which are produced and have been produced for many years. The second gives a brief description of the service. That is the crux of the matter which Senator Reid clearly does not understand. It is a description of the service. It is a short consultation or a long consultation, but it is a technical procedure. It is not a description of the disease or illness. It is nonsense to suggest that in this provision the Government is suddenly opening up everybody's medical records to anybody who wants to look at them. It is an unnecessary scare tactic and should not be raised. Let me remind the Senate of what happened under the old system, and indeed will still happen under the voluntary health funds. People take their accounts to those voluntary health funds and they then pass through many hands in those funds. Hundreds of those funds have existed in the past. There was no guarantee of privacy there at all, no guarantee that they would not be passed round everybody in the office. There was no computerisation in most of the offices, with the protection that such a system gives. Large piles of records and papers, patients' records and bills, used to be kept in the back offices of all those voluntary health funds. There was no question from Senator Reid or any other member of this place that the potential for a breach of such privilege existed in those circumstances. But now, because Medicare has been introduced and because the Opposition has an ideological objection to it, the Senate is treated to nit-picking complaints such as it has heard this afternoon. Typical of those complaints was Senator Reid's objection to the lack of gap insurance. I am always fascinated to hear the Australian Medical Association complaining about such a matter. Under the old Medibank legislation, that Association violently opposed gap insurance. It did not want it because it felt that there should be a patient moiety, some amount of money which the patient should pay so that he or she recognised it was a professional service. It is only under Medicare, only after the Australian Labor Party and the present Government introduced the Medicare system, that the Association suddenly makes this extraordinary turnabout on gap insurance. The reasons for not having such insurance have been clearly explained over and again by Dr Blewett and by everybody who has been involved in this debate, and I shall not again go into details. I find the matter of public importance raised for discussion quite extraordinary. It states: The failure of the Minister for Health to honour the Government's commitment to institute a national health insurance scheme that is both simple and fair. I find that is an extraordinary matter of public importance for a Minister in the previous Government to bring up. Let us go briefly over the history of health insurance in this country. I think it is worthwhile to do so. The fuss really started back in 1968-69 with the previous Liberal-Country Party Government of that time, which became very much aware that all was not well with the health insurance system of this country. Therefore, it set up the Nimmo Committee of Inquiry into Health Insurance. That inquiry came up with the following findings, roughly: First, there were too many voluntary health funds; secondly, they were inefficient; thirdly, too many people in this country were not covered by health insurance; fourthly, it was expensive; fifthly, the health insurance funds were getting up to all sorts of tricks with buildings and planes and other things and misusing the funds provided to them by patients in the community. The funds were not providing the service they said they would provide, nor were they providing the service across the whole spectrum of patients in this country. As I said before, large numbers of people were not covered. Mr Gorton, the then Prime Minister, and his Minister for Health did not think much of the situation exposed by this inquiry and said that the Government would do something about it. At that time I was in private medical practice. I remember the kerfuffle over the suggestion by the Prime Minister of the day that his Government would have to do something about health insurance. The fuss went on in a big way because the medical benefits funds at that time were controlled completely by the medical profession. There was the extraordinary situation of 10 or 12 directors were doctors and another 10 were not doctors but were picked by the people who were doctors. There was no election, no consumer representation or anything else. A great campaign rose up against Mr Gorton and the then Liberal-Country Party Government. It did nothing about health insurance . Eventually, in 1972, the Labor Government was elected with a clear mandate to introduce a national health insurance scheme in this country funded by a levy on taxable income to provide basic health, hospital and medical cover for the sick and citizens in general of this community. We were going to introduce a scheme just like the Medicare scheme. Again, all hell broke loose. I was here for the second half of that 1972-75 period. I remind honourable senators of what happened. First of all, the Opposition obstructed that legislation. We had a double dissolution and a Joint Sitting. The legislation went through in the Joint Sitting but the Liberal-Country Party Opposition at the time opposed, of all things, the levy to pay for the system. The Bill to introduce the levy was one of the Bills used by that infamous character, Sir John Kerr, in calling the double dissolution in 1975. After the double dissolution, what did the Liberal-Country Party Government do? It introduced exactly the same piece of legislation to impose a levy which Senator Baume and others had opposed in this place when in opposition. It said: 'We will reform the health insurance system in this country. We will introduce a health insurance scheme which is fair to everybody, which is affordable by the community and which will be accepted by the community'. From 1975 to 1983 we had six health insurance schemes. I was the Opposition spokesman on health in this place over those years and every year I used to debate the latest amendments to the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act. At the end of every speech I made in the second reading debates I said: 'I will see you here again next year because this will not work. It is unfair and unworkable'. I was right every time. For six years we had new schemes over and over again. Every year the Minister for Health, whoever he happened to be at the time, said: 'I feel a new health insurance scheme coming on'. Those Health Ministers would trot to the Parliament with the lastest scheme which it was claimed would make all the changes, all the differences, and would introduce what they said would be, in the words of this motion, 'a simple and fair' health insurance scheme. None of those schemes worked because the Government of the day was completely under the thumb of two groups: A small section of the medical profession and a section of the voluntary health insurance funds who believed, as apparently do some people on the other side, that medicine in this community is best provided through what they call a free market. I remind honourable senators that what is involved in most people's concept of a free market in this community is a situation in which the seller has full knowledge and the buyer has full knowledge. They can therefore compete as equals in the community. That rarely applies in the area of health services. First of all, in most cases the patient, the buyer, cannot decide whether to have the service then and there. The patient cannot put off the service. Patients want the service because they are ill. They have no choice. Secondly, in general, they have no knowledge. They do not have expertise in the area. The seller, the medical practitioner, has all the knowledge. In every civilised country, governments-whether conservative, social, democratic, democratic social, liberal or whatever-have had to interfere in that so-called free market process because the simple fact of the matter is that the best and fairest way to deliver health services in the community is to recognise that none of us can predict when we will need those services or the extent to which we will need them. None of us can say that we will never need a health scheme or that we will never need a doctor. None of us can say that we will never get run over by a bus, get a myocardial infarction or any other illness. Thus, the best way to fund the health insurance scheme is through the community rating principle. The best way, not the most perfect way, we have to fund it in this country is to impose a levy which is based as much as possible on people's capacity to pay; that is, through a levy on taxable income. If people want extras on top of that, if they want the capacity to go into private hospitals where, as is the case in some hospitals in Melbourne, wine is served with meals and other fancy provisions are provided, they can insure for that on top of the basic health insurance scheme which is provided for all citizens in the country on the basis of capacity to pay. I hope it is provided to them also on the basis of their needs in this area. That is a fair health system. That is the sort of system we wanted to introduce . It is the system we tried to introduce in 1975. After a couple of months it was not persisted with by the new Government which came in at the end of 1975. That Government in the next seven years demonstrated a profound incapacity to introduce a health insurance system which was understood, which was simple and fair. In 1983 the present Government was elected with an absolute, clear mandate to do what for years we had explained we would do when we were elected; namely, introduce a health insurance scheme which was universal, which was funded by a levy on taxable income and which, in fact, was fair. That is what we have. That system has only just been introduced. Of course, there are some teething problems. No one suggested that there would not be, although I suggest that those teething problems are much less than many of us would have thought. It is an example of the success of the scheme, not its failure that the Opposition, in introducing this matter of public importance which is supposed to be entirely critical of the health insurance system as it has existed for the last couple of months, makes these sorts of complaints: Complaints about the procedure for issuing receipts, to which Dr Blewett and the Health Insurance Commission have made some changes in response to the community's reaction; complaints from Senator Reid that on her payslip the one per cent levy is clearly shown, yet on her secretary's it is not. They are complaints about procedural matters. There are then the usual shibboleths which demonstrate that some things in this Parliament never change. The first one was expressed by Senator Reid when she said that we are nationalising the medical profession. How on earth can we nationalise the medical profession by introducing a health insurance scheme which maintains the fee for service systems, which maintains private practice, and which in fact provides for the assistance of funding of private practice in this community? How on earth can that be described as nationalisation of the health scheme? How can it be described as the creeping socialism that Senator Reid talks about? My time, in essence, has almost run out. For the Opposition to raise a matter of public importance which talks about the failure of this Government to introduce a national health insurance scheme which 'is simple and fair' after two months of operation and produce only nit picking criticisms demonstrates cheek and gall, not constructive criticism of the existing scheme. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Reid. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Was something that you said in the debate misrepresented by Senator Reid in a subsequent speech? Senator CROWLEY —Something that Senator Reid said misrepresented me. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —She misrepresented something you said? Senator CROWLEY —Well, I do not think I said it. I did not say what she claims I said. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —In that case you cannot claim that you have been misrepresented. You must seek leave to make a personal explanation. Senator CROWLEY —It seems to me that I have been personally misrepresented by her statement of what she claims I said. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CROWLEY —Senator Reid claimed, as I heard it, that I said that I was supporting the current Government's nationalised health scheme. That could not be further from the truth. It is not what I said; it is not what I claimed. I would like it to be recorded that I did not say that. If I should use a word that applied to our health scheme it would be 'socialised' and not 'nationalised '. I just wanted to make that clear to the Senate. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) suggested that I said that the Medicare levy deduction had been shown on my payslip but not on the payslip of my electoral assistant. The deduction was shown on neither pay slip. I was conveying that the deduction was not shown generally throughout the Public Service in accordance with the commitment made by the Government and that it ought to be shown on everybody's payslip. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding in the Senate about what a misrepresentation is. If someone makes a speech and a subsequent speaker in the same debate misrepresents or misunderstands what that honourable senator said, he or she is entitled as of right, if wishing to do so, subsequently to explain the nature of the misrepresentation. Any other allegations made in speeches about what happens elsewhere can be made only as a personal explanation by leave of the Senate. Honourable senators seem to be using those two procedures interchangeably. They are quite separate. One can be used as of right; the other requires the leave of the Senate. 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)(5.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to regulate the use of the Advance Australia logo. On 13 October 1983 the Government announced its decision to introduce legislation so as to ensure, with effect from that date, that the logo is used only in accordance with the objectives of the Advance Australia campaign. The ultimate aim of that campaign is to stimulate demand for Australian goods and services. Consequently the unauthorised use of the logo and look-alike symbols is of considerable concern to the Government as it directly threatens to undermine the campaign and the financial viability of the Advance Australia company. Before I mention the main provisions in this Bill I will take a few moments to outline the background to Advance Australia. The Advance Australia campaign was launched in 1979 on the recommendation of the Australian Manufacturing Council, an advisory body to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. From 1979 to 1981, the campaign was managed by the Department of Industry and Commerce through the Project Australia Committee which included senior business executives, trade union officials and the secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Because of growth in private sector support and interest, a non-profit, public interest company, Advance Australia, was established in mid-1981 to manage the on-going campaign. The Project Australia Committee became the board of the new company. In the period 1979 to 1983 the Government provided $5.14m to the campaign. A system of licensing arrangements involving the franchise of the Advance Australia logo was also developed to raise revenue for the campaign. These arrangements proved highly successful with over 700 companies actively participating and over $3m in revenue being raised through licensing since 1979. In 1982-83 $1.75m was raised from the licences. Because of this success, the Government ceased its contribution to the campaign on 30 June 1983 and the Advance Australia company is now a self funding, private sector project. The Advance Australia campaign has been remarkably well received by the Australian community, achieving very high levels of public awareness and acceptance. It is estimated that the logo now appears in advertising and marketing activities involving more than $2 billion of Australian products. The challenge now facing the company is to maintain and build upon its success. However its financial viability and on-going success are under threat because of the unauthorised use of the logo and a variety of look-alike symbols by some Australian and overseas companies. Furthermore the Government believes that the use of the logo and look-alike symbols on imported goods is misleading as consumers may be misled that the goods are manufactured in Australia. The unauthorised use of the logo is thus not only threatening the validity of licences issued by Advance Australia but is damaging the interests of existing licence holders. I now turn to the major provisions of the Bill. Clauses 6 to 8 vest ownership of the copyright of the logo in the Advance Australia company, make the Advance Australia company owner of the design of the logo and provide for the laws applicable to the ownership of personal property to apply also to ownership of the design of the logo. These provisions will allow the company to seek protection against unauthorised use of the design of the logo directly through the courts without the need for Commonwealth involvement. Generally speaking, the provisions of clause 11 provide for a prohibition on both the importation of articles bearing the logo and the production or sale in Australia, without licence, of articles which bear the logo. An action for infringement of the ownership of the design can be initiated by either Advance Australia or by a licence holder whose interests have been affected by the infringement. If these rights are infringed the courts may grant damages or a sum equal to the amount gained by unauthorised use. Safeguard provisions have been incorporated into the Bill to protect the Commonwealth's interest and investment in the campaign. Clause 10 makes provision for the ownership of the logo to revert to the Commonwealth in the event of the Company winding up or the Minister being satisfied that it is no longer in the public interest for the company to own the logo. The Minister is also empowered by clause 17 to give directions to the company in connection with the exercise of its powers in relation to the copyright and design of the logo. The company is also required by clause 18 to provide the Minister with an annual report detailing licences issued, amounts received and the application of those funds. The Government believes that it has a responsibility to protect the Australian firms which have, in good faith, actively supported the Advance Australia campaign and taken out product licences with the Advance Australia company to use the logo in their advertising and marketing. This legislation is therefore necessary to protect the logo and to ensure that the Advance Australia campaign will continue its success with the company having a sound basis for its future operations. The provisions of this Bill do not have any financial implications. I mentioned earlier that the Commonwealth ceased its financial contribution to the campaign on 30 June 1983. Advance Australia is now a self-funding, private sector project . I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Second Readings Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.15) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS BILL 1984 Mr President, this Bill, together with the Satellite Communications ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984, gives effect to recent Government decisions on the ownership and management of the national communications satellite system. The Bills together express the Government's intention that the telecommunications system provided by Telecom and the satellite telecommunications system provided by AUSSAT shall together form one national telecommunications network for Australia. The Australian satellite system will provide enhanced broadcasting and telecommunications facilities for the provision of services that would not be possible, or would be prohibitively expensive, using terrestrial based systems. The unique nature of satellite technology means that distance is no longer a major inhibiting factor in bringing news, information and entertainment to all Australians, wherever they may live. Clearly, the satellite will be a boon to those living in the more remote and outback regions of Australia. It will bring to those Australians the benefits of ABC radio and television services, through the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service. Along with other innovative developments in terrestrial communications, the satellite will have the ability to provide a range of telephony services to remote dwellers, including mining settlements, outback homesteads, and Aboriginal communities. The development of satellite related technology and support services in Australia is likely to provide a significant stimulus to Australian industry, create more employment opportunities and raise the technological base of many industry sectors. The Satellite Communications Bill outlines the legal framework within which AUSSAT Pty Ltd will operate the national satellite system, and guarantees AUSSAT 's future within the national telecommunications infrastructure. Under the Bill, AUSSAT is to operate as a commercial, tax paying enterprise with its primary object being the operation of a satellite telecommunications system for Australia. AUSSAT may also provide satellite facilities for use in telecommunications systems in neighbouring regions. These objects are firmly entrenched in that the Bill deems them to be objects of the company even where the company's Memorandum of Association may not so provide, and obliges the Directors of AUSSAT to act in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. The provision of satellite facilities for use in neighbouring regions does not authorise AUSSAT to provide services of the type currently provided by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for communications between Australia and other countries. Mr President, the Bill ensures that AUSSAT shall remain as an integral component of the public telecommunications network by providing that AUSSAT may not be wound up either voluntarily or by its shareholders except in accordance with a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. At present AUSSAT Pty Ltd is wholly owned by the Commonwealth although some shares are held in trust for the Commonwealth because of company law requirements. However, the Government believes that the joint development of our national telecommunications network would be more readily accomplished by the full involvement of Telecom in the domestic satellite system. The Bill therefore provides that a strategic shareholding of up to 25 per cent of the shares in AUSSAT may be sold to Telecom with the approval of the Minister for Communications. Action in this regard is now in hand, and I would expect that by the end of this financial year, Telecom will have acquired a 25 per cent shareholding in the company. Mr President, the Government is committed to ensuring that satellite transponder capacity is available, in the public interest, to certain users of the satellite system. Consequently, the Bill obliges the Directors of AUSSAT to ensure that, so far as practicable, AUSSAT is able to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth for the purposes of provision and maintenance of air navigation and related safety services, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for the purposes of provision of television and broadcasting services to remote communities and dwellings and Telecom for the purposes of provision of telephone services in remote areas, and for emergency services. These requirements are supplemented by provisions in AUSSAT's Memorandum and Articles of Association requiring that fair and equitable tariffs be set in respect of these and other services that AUSSAT will provide. The Bill also requires the Directors of AUSSAT to have regard to the intentions of Parliament expressed therein and the requirements of international law. Mr President, under the Bill, AUSSAT or other persons using the satellite system may erect their own earth station facilities for transmission of signals to and from a satellite and between a satellite earth station and premises owned or occupied and used by AUSSAT or the persons concerned, as the case may be. Such facilities will, of course, be subject to other laws of the Commonwealth, including the Radiocommunications Act 1983, in relation to licences or permits for telecommunications installations. Consistent with the Government's firmly held belief that satellite services should complement Telecom's terrestrial Telecommunications system, rather than compete with it, the Bill prohibits AUSSAT from providing public switched telephone services or public switched data services. These measures are designed to ensure that there is no fragmentation of Telecom's public switched network which has provided and continues to provide Australians with a high standard of basic and enhanced services. In order that satellite transponder capacity be utilised in optimal fashion and to avoid difficulties that might otherwise arise, the Bill provides that satellite users will not be permitted to sell or otherwise dispose of the right to transmit signals to an AUSSAT satellite. The Bill makes mandatory the inclusion of such a term in any agreement between AUSSAT and a user of satellite facilities. Additionally, and subject to regulations that may be made pursuant to the Bill, persons other than AUSSAT and certain other recognised communications common carriers may not use a facility in an AUSSAT satellite for the purpose of carrying on a business of providing facilities for telecommunications between other persons. It is the Government's intention that the regulation of satellite services in respect to what is known as third party traffic will be in line with existing regulation by Telecom of terrestrial services. In order that the integrity of the satellite system be protected, the Bill also provides that a person shall not transmit a signal to an AUSSAT satellite otherwise than in accordance with an agreement between AUSSAT and the person concerned or with the approval of AUSSAT. In respect of both this and the restriction on resale and third party usage, the Bill provides penalties ranging from a maximum of $10,000 for a natural person to $50,000 for a corporation. Finally, the Bill provides for the making of regulations by the Governor- General prescribing all matters required or permitted by this Bill to be prescribed or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the objects of AUSSAT. The sale of 25% of the Commonwealth's shareholding in AUSSAT to Telecom will enable the Commonwealth to recoup approximately $14.8m of its share expenditures . There will also be a saving to the Commonwealth on future calls on issued shares amounting to approximately $6.4m. As AUSSAT is to operate as a commercial tax paying venture it is not expected that the Commonwealth will need to make any further financial contributions to the company other than its liability on unpaid calls which are expected to amount to about $16.9m in 1984/85 and $2.25m in 1985/86. Based on realistic projections of the use of the system by Government and commercial users together with the latest cost estimates AUSSAT expects that it will recover its costs, repay its debts and generate dividend returns during the life of the first generation of satellites, that is, 1985 to 1992. Mr President, this Bill is yet another link in the chain which commenced with the establishment of a National Communications Satellite Task Force in late 1977. All the indications so far are that the introduction of satellite communications to Australia will bring the social and economic benefits that were foreshadowed at that time. Today sees the completion of a necessary and vital step that puts the framework in place for the commencement of satellite services in 1985. The Government extends its thanks to all those who have been involved in this important national project. I commend the Bill to the Senate. SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984 Mr President, the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 amends the Telecommunications Act 1975, the Postal Services Act 1975 and the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1975, in relation to certain matters consequent upon the Satellite Communications Bill 1984. Most importantly the Bill entrenches in the Telecommunications Act 1975 the intention of Parliament that the telecommunications system operated by Telecom and the satellite system operated by AUSSAT shall together constitute the national telecommunications network for Australia. The Bill also provides Telecom with the necessary powers to enable the taking up of shares in AUSSAT. Honourable Senators will know that the Government has decided that Telecom should be permitted to acquire up to 25 per cent of the shareholding in AUSSAT. I expect that by June 1984 Telecom will have purchased a 25 per cent share in the company, and will thus be able to participate fully in the development and implementation of AUSSAT's operational policies. The Government is also taking the opportunity to broaden Telecom's powers so that it may, with the approval of the Minister, form or participate with other persons in the formation of companies involved in the business of telecommunications and enter into partnership agreements and agreements for the provision of technical services to companies of that nature. The purpose of this wider amendment is to ensure that Telecom as an organization has the institutional flexibility to be able to respond at a policy level to the rapid changes that are occurring in telecommunications technology, which in themselves are bringing pressures from business and other users for new and enhanced services. These proposed powers, used sensibly, could enable Telecom to meet more creatively the demands of the private sector for new telecommunications services , and could bring a greater degree of commercial management to certain parts of Telecom's operations. As I noted earlier, the powers cannot be exercised by Telecom except with the approval of the Minister. The Bill includes provisions that enable the Minister to give directions to Telecom in respect of the disposal of its interests in such a company or the termination of arrangements between Telecom and the company as the case may be. A further amendment to the Telecommunications Act that is consequential upon provisions in the Satellite Communications Bill is the provision at Clause 6 that exempts AUSSAT, and a person authorised under that legislation to use facilities in an AUSSAT satellite, from the monopoly provisions of section 94 of the Telecommunications Act. Mr President, the Bill also amends the Postal Services Act 1975 to the extent necessary to confer on the Australian Postal Commission the power to use the services provided by AUSSAT in connection with the performance of its functions. This power will be relevant to the provision of electronic mail services by Australia Post. Similar provisions are included in respect of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946. Powers presently in this Act which enable the Overseas Telecommunications Commission to form or participate in the formation of a company to provide satellite telecommunications services are no longer required and have been withdrawn. Provisions remain in the Act however that would permit the Commission to enter into a partnership or other form of commercial relationship with AUSSAT Pty Ltd. The Commission may, for example, provide technical services for AUSSAT. The exercise of these powers requires the Minister's approval. The purchase of 25 per cent of AUSSAT's shares will cost Telecom about $14.8m. These shares will carry with them an outstanding liability of about $6.4m for calls not yet made. Telecom will raise this money through its public borrowing program. To put this in perspective Honourable Senators should note that in 1982 /83 Telecom's capital expenditure was $1573m. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania) —by leave-With considerable pleasure I commend the Fishing Industry Research Committee on its report for the year. Fishing represents one of the areas we are looking at for future development of Australian industry. The Research Committee has done very good work. It would be inappropriate if I did not commend the Committee's Chairman, Dr Bain, and all the people who are associated with it and who have been involved in the various projects that were carried on during the year. I would also like to mention Fred Connell, whose name appears so regularly in fishing matters, and Dr Jeffrey of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The contributions made by these people to ensure that research in the fishing industry continues is enormous. Funding for 1982-83 ran into something over $2m. Several aspects of the fishing industry are very important at this stage. They are stock preservation and improvement, the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the industry and the merchandising and promotion of the product. At present there is great conjecture about the stocks of fish in the various waters around Australia. Currently the two problem areas appear to be the south-east trawl area and the scallop fisheries between Victoria and Tasmania. This problem is nothing new because we know the various stresses and strains that the lobster, southern blue fin tuna, prawn and abalone fisheries have been under in terms of management. At this stage all I would like to urge is that the greatest care and control be ensured before we go headlong into decisions to over-fish some of these existing and remaining areas. I am a great believer in history. I believe everybody should study the history of these sorts of things. One need only look back to the 1928 debacle when the industry throughout Australia collapsed because of over-fishing. I do not want to see it happen again. I urge that we bear this in mind. At present changes are contemplated for the south-eastern trawl fishery. I have read every piece of information I can get, I have talked to every fisherman that I know and I have studied every possibility that I can see and there are enormous differences between the quantity of fish that some people are assuming exist and the sort of fishing that any research and any practical fisherman are able to demonstrate. It would be an absolute disaster if our keenness and enthusiasm for new industries were such that we over-fished a very fragile area and wound up with no fish in a very short time. The sorts of controls that are also being contemplated for the scallop fishery between Victoria and Tasmania have to be agreed upon. There has been a great influx of boats and effort. It would concern me very greatly if, again, by over- fishing we got into trouble in this area in the next year or so. Last year there was probably a four-fold increase in effort in quite a fragile fishery. In the coming season it may increase by, say, 50 per cent. It is my opinion that the waters and the stock will simply not carry it. If they carry it for one year they may not carry it much beyond. We would then go through a very dull patch while waiting for a very slow recovery. I trust that the Fishing Industry Research Committee will be able to take these things into account and get the co -operation of the Federal Government, the State governments involved, all the industries and the industry fishermen. I certainly hope that next year we will be able to say that we have overcome some of these potential difficulties. Senator JONES(Queensland) —by leave-I want to pass one or two remarks on the 1982-83 annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee within the Department of Primary Industry. I congratulate the Department of Primary Industry on the detail outlined in that report. As Senator Archer said, it is very good to see the sort of research that is being undertaken in the fishing industry, not only in Queensland but also in a number of other States throughout Australia. I looked through the report as a senator representing Queensland and I noted the number of research projects that are being undertaken and the allocation of money by the Fishing Industry Research Committee to projects in Queensland. It is with some degree of support that I looked through the report and found among the research projects going on at the moment the southern Queensland deep water trawler survey. When one looks at the fishing industry in Queensland, particularly trawling for prawns and fish in the Queensland coastal areas, one sees that it is fairly important to that industry that some assessment be made of the resources available to fishermen in the area. It is very pleasing to see that a grant of $48,000 was allocated to Mr J. Hodge, a fisherman in Southport, Queensland, for the survey he is undertaking with a number of trawler fishermen employed out of the Southport area who trawl for prawns and fish along the Queensland coast. The research projects set down by the Research Committee, under the guidance of the Department of Primary Industry, certainly did not stop at that level. There was an assessment of the Queensland in-shore net fisheries. There was a further allocation of money for the assessment of off-shore crab resources in northern Queensland. The development of any research in this area is a very worthwhile project because of the number of people the industry employs in Queensland. It is pleasing to note that money has been allocated to a Mr D. Jones, a fisherman of Kawana Waters in Queensland. From reading through the details of that allocation of $82,000 it is obvious that the money has been allocated to a fisherman who is involved in the area in which the research is being undertaken. I believe that the results of the research and the information that will become available to the Department of Primary Industry and the fishing industry generally in Queensland will only be of value to the future exploitation of the fishing resources within Queensland. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This was a particularly important report to the north of Tasmania and to the whole of Tasmania. There have been very considerable problems which date back many years, from the construction of a hospital for which the architects forgot to plan kitchens and which was constructed without any, to large developments for the extension of the Launceston General Hospital and only part of the extensions going ahead. Very serious differences arose between the Commonwealth and the State as to the funding of further developments and the requirements under which they could take place. There was a difference of attitude about what should happen with regard to the many small local hospitals throughout northern Tasmania which serve an extremely important function and which the State Government believed needed to be preserved to ensure that there was locally available immediate hospital care where appropriate although, of course, more serious and special cases would be treated in the Launceston General Hospital. A committee of review was appointed to conduct an inquiry and make recommendations. I do not propose to take up the time of the Senate by going through those recommendations. Suffice it to say that there appears to have been a very favourable response to the report and the report appears to provide the basis upon which a settlement of problems can take place and the further requirements of hospitals in Launceston and in northern Tasmania can proceed to be met expeditiously. I can only wish it well. It has been a long standing problem. I think the Committee is to be congratulated for achieving a report which appears to have been accepted by a variety of people who had major differences of opinion as to what should happen. I simply welcome the report and the expedition of the further development of the hospital and I welcome the prospect of a settlement of the problems that were investigated by the committee of review. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.29) —I note that the first recommendation of the committee of review to examine the further development of Launceston General Hospital and the hospital development needs of north-east Tasmania is that immediate action be taken to complete the new hospital. This indicates the urgency for action to be taken in building the second stage of the Launceston General Hospital. The introduction of Medicare has led to an influx of patients. There is the problem of people now waiting for a fairly long time to get admission to the hospital. I have been involved not only in getting people into the hospital but also in finding alternative accommodation in Hobart or at the repatriation hospital there because of the shortage of beds. There are other unfortunate cases of people having to leave hospital earlier than would otherwise be the case because of the chronic shortage of beds. The Launceston General Hospital cannot presently cope with the patients who have to go there. Therefore, there is an urgent need to implement the recommendations in this report. Fortunately the report, because of its balance and its understanding of the inherent problems at the hospital, has met with wide acceptance in the Tasmanian community. There is also the problem of geriatric accommodation. There is a shortage of nursing care for the aged, particularly in northern Tasmania, with the result that many of these people are now in the Launceston General Hospital. That is enough of the report. I hope we can get an early response from the Commonwealth Government and that it and the Tasmanian Government can get together to arrange the formulation of plans and finance to enable an immediate start to be made on the work on the Launceston General Hospital. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(5.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I am pleased to see that the forward Estimates have been made available but I note that there is no forward estimate of a Budget deficit which may arise. I compare that situation and the arguments used by the Government as to why it will not provide that information with the action which it took, I believe somewhat despicably-I use that word with care-last year when it attacked the former Treasurer and the former Government on the basis of information which it will not provide this year and which it says cannot be reliably provided. Yet, that was the basis of the attack made last year in relation to the former Treasurer. Senator Grimes —Not true. Senator PETER RAE —I simply take this opportunity to note that the information provided last year and used as the basis for the attack has not been provided this year. If, as Senator Grimes interjects, that is not true, I await his response. I believe that to be the situation. If there is some other explanation I am sure that not only I but also others will be interested to hear it. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(5.33) —The reply to Senator Rae's query is quite simple, and the honourable senator knows it is quite simple. The then discredited Treasurer and the discredited Prime Minister were wandering around this country in an election campaign giving us a figure for the proposed Budget deficit which they knew was wrong and which they had been told by the Treasury during those weeks was wrong. They were giving a figure that they knew was wrong. That is an entirely different situation from that which exists now. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.34) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. This report on the administration of the Bankruptcy Act for 1982-83 indicates that there were approximately 5,150 proceedings under that Act during the year, an increase over 1981-82 when there were some 4,575 bankruptcy proceedings representing an increase of some 12 1/2 per cent. That increase occurred in all States and Territories of the Commonwealth. The largest rise in bankruptcy proceedings occurred in Western Australia, followed fairly closely by Queensland . The national increase in the number of bankruptcy proceedings is a lagged response to the worsening economic conditions experienced by Australia in 1982. This lag in the changes in the number of bankruptcies has been the subject of considerable research overseas in recent years and conclusions are now able to be reached about how long bankruptcies lag behind trends in economic activity. The total value of liabilities disclosed in this annual report is $187m. That compares with $106m in the previous financial year, representing a very large increase. It shows what large sums of money are involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Of course the bare figures do not reflect the disruption to lives and the suffering experienced by the many people involved directly in proceedings. The report goes into some detail about the causes of bankruptcy in Australia. In the 1982-83 financial year some 24 per cent were due to economic conditions affecting industry, another 31 per cent reflected a lack of business ability and some 15 per cent were put down to a lack of sufficient working capital. The second factor, the lack of business ability, underlines the need in Australia for better, more comprehensive management training for the managers of small businesses. I believe the third factor underlines the importance of moves at both Commonwealth and State levels for new authorities and new approaches to assist small businesses. In my State the Small Business Corporation will be established this month, but we need at the national level as well as the State level new approaches to the whole question of financing small business because obviously a high proportion of such businesses are at risk. That is particularly so in depressed economic circumstances. The report discloses a couple of extremely high risk areas in Australian industry. It is clear that the building and construction sector accounts for a high proportion of bankruptcies-over 600-and the transport and storage industry accounted for 500 bankruptcies. I believe that reflects the conditions prevailing in the road transport industry. I welcome the inquiry by the current Government into trends in the road transport industry. We can go beyond merely the total bankruptcy figures for 1982-83 by examining the notices appearing in each bankruptcy district in Australia. Information from my State for the first eight months of the 1983-84 financial year indicates that to the end of February 483 bankruptcies were filed on debtors and creditors petitions compared with some 592 in the corresponding period of the previous financial year, representing an 18 per cent reduction. I believe that reduction is also being experienced in Victoria and Tasmania. It is pleasing to see in the current financial year that there may be a downturn in the number of bankruptcies in Australia. I believe that that is a sign of the improving economic circumstances in this country. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.38) —I draw the attention of the Senate to page 2 of the annual report of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the operation of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Under the heading 'Further Review of the Bankruptcy Act', the report states: Within the Branch, work has continued on the further review of the Bankruptcy Act first announced by the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in his media release dated 16 July 1981. Part of the review goes to the question of whether the priority provisions of the Act should be brought into line with the priority provisions in the new Australian Companies Code. This is a matter of great importance, particularly when there has been increased bankruptcies, to the workers employed by the bankrupt firms. For many years I have been disconcerted about the fact that, as usual, the Australian Taxation Office gets its fangs into the bankrupt firms before the workers' entitlements are totally remitted. Admittedly, in 1977 following discussion in this Parliament the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs talked about the priority of Crown rights. It was asked to review the right of priority of the Crown over other creditors in matters of bankruptcy, corporate liquidations or other cases of impecunious persons or corporations. The net result of that was that some degree of priority over the Taxation Office's claim in respect of company tax was given to workers but only to the extent of $1,500 in lost wages. It should be noted that the Taxation Office gets its fangs into these bankrupt firms before such matters as long service leave, annual leave and accrued recreation or sick leave have been paid to the workers. In addition to that, even before the worker can get his wages for the week in which the bankruptcy took place, a total priority is given to the Taxation Office. Under a law which this Parliament endorses-I certainly do not-the Taxation Office can get its fangs into the bankrupt firm for tax instalment deductions which have already been paid by the worker. The Taxation Office is therefore trying to get double from the worker in that respect. Furthermore, the prescribed payments deduction and the withholding tax on dividends are priorities before one single red cent is paid out to any worker for lost wages. Senator Kilgariff —It sounds illegal. Senator HARRADINE —This is what the law says, and it concerns me. Last night and again today I briefly referred to the fact that the Government seems to provide a free go to the Taxation Office in these matters. I refer of course, to the debate that occurred yesterday about the cherry picking scheme. As I said, the worker, not the Taxation Office, should get the first bite at the cherry. The Government tried to allow the Taxation Office to get its fangs into this money, which was properly due to the workers. I have the benefit of a document which was prepared by the economics and commerce group of the Legislative Research Service of this Parliament. Because my time has now expired I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ANNUAL REPORT BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON THE OPERATION OF THE BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 ORDER OF PAYMENTS On 21 April 1977 the following matter was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: Priority of Crown Debts ''Review the right of priority of the Crown over other creditors in matters of bankruptcy, corporate liquidations or other cases of impecunious persons or corporations''. The Committee analysed the reasons advanced for according preferential treatment to governments over other creditors. It concluded in June 1978 that the right of the Crown to be paid debts owing to it in priority to other creditors of an insolvent administration should be abrogated entirely. The Government accepted the main thrust of the Senate Report and has since passed legislation amending bankruptcy and taxation administration to abolish the priority as a creditor, which was previously afforded to the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. In addition, the Crown Debts (Priority) Act 1981 (No. 93 of 1981) carries through this policy in relation to the insolvency of corporate and unincorporate bodies. The Act sets out three categories of laws relating to such things as order of debts and priority of creditors and provides that the right of priority of the Crown is subject to any State or Territory laws dealing with such matters. The legislation was introduced as part of the package of new company laws which form part of the national scheme for uniform company and securities industry law. However, following the payment of trustees' proper administration charges or expenses, the Commonwealth retains its priority in relation to the recovery of unremitted tax instalment deductions (section 221P of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936); prescribed payments deductions (section 221YHJ) and withholding tax on dividends and interest remitted overseas (section 221YU). The Commissioner's priority acts to the exclusion of relevant provisions contained in the following pieces of legislation: Bankruptcy Act 1966-section 109 Australian Companies Code-section 441 Taxation An employer is required under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to remit to the Commissioner tax instalment deductions (in the case of a group employer) or to affix the tax stamps of that value (in the case of a non-group employer). Failure to do so attracts penalties under the Act. Moreover, where the employer' s assets have become vested in or their unlimited control has passed to a liquidator, receiver, executor, administrator or other trustee, the trustee is liable, to the extent of property in his control, for that amount (section 221P) . The Trustee is also liable for unremitted tax deducted at source-prescribed payments-(sub-section 221YHJ (3) and tax withheld from dividends and interest remitted overseas (sub-section 221YU (1)). The Commissioner's debt has priority over all other debts (sub-sections 221P (2 ); 221YHJ (4) and 221YU (2)). Excluding the trustees proper administration charges or expenses (sub-sections 221P (3) and 221YU (3)). Bankruptcy Act relates to unincorporated entities whilst the Companies code relates to incorporated entities. Priority Payments Bankruptcy Act Companies Code(Commonwealth Legislation) (State Legislation) Trustees Expenses Administration Winding up Para 109 (1) (a) and (b) Para 441 (a), (b), (c) and (d) Taxation Claims (i) tax instalment deductions (ii) prescribed payments deductions (iii) withholding tax on dividends, etc. Payments to bankrupt debtor Funeral and testimentary expenses to the estate of a deceased debtor Payment to employees for services (not exceeding $1500) Amounts due in respect of injury compensation All other amounts due to employees Payments to apprentices Payments to creditors, etc. Wages not exceeding $2000 Amounts due in respect of injury compensation All amounts due to employer in respect of leave of absence (i) All Rates (ii) All amounts of Income Tax (iii) All amounts of Land Tax (iv) All amounts of Pay-roll tax (v) All amounts due and payable (A) by way of repayment of any advance made to the co. (B) in respect of goods supplied or services rendered. Economics and Commerce Group 28 March 1984 Legislative Research Service Senator HARRADINE-I repeat that this Government should ensure that the workers' rights are properly identified and catered for before the Taxation Office get its fangs into that money retrospectively. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.43) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The Government's proposal to repeal section 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act is a sell-out to the militant trade union movement. It is an ideological pay -off to the left wing of the trade union movement. Section 45D was one of the very few effective sanctions against irresponsible industrial disruption. The claim by Mr Willis, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, that section 45D and 45E disputes could be better handled by Federal and State tribunals is complete nonsense. If that were true, why have we not got complementary legislation of that kind being introduced simultaneously with notification of what the Government intends to do in this area? The facts are that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the various State industrial tribunals have proved to be traditionally opposed to the use of sanctions in industrial relations. I have mentioned that the proposal to repeal sections 45D and 45E is a complete sell-out. On the other hand, what does the Government do? While repealing these sections, it has indicated its intention to double the penalty for predatory business conduct. The other matter that concerns me is that I believe there is a conflict between the proposals for amending the Trade Practices Act relating to unconscionable conduct or one-sided contracts and section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, which gives Dr Blewett, the Minister for Health, complete power to change doctors' contracts at any time and yet deny the doctors the right of appeal. So we are seeing complete contrasts between these two actions by this Government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for debate on government papers has now expired. Motion (by Senator Kilgariff)-by leave-agreed to: That General Business, Order of the Day No. 38, annual report of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd be considered pursuant to sessional order on Thursday, 29 March 1984 , at consideration of Government papers. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the second report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, Canned and Frozen Vegetables (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984, Collective Agreements (Corporations) Bill 1983, Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1984, Honey (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1984 and Satellite Communications Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 dated 28 March 1984. Debate resumed from 8 December 1983, on motion by Senator Sibraa: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(5.50) —On 8 December last year I presented to the Senate a report on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa and adjacent Indian Ocean island states. This report arose out of deliberations of the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Sub- Committee on Middle East and African affairs, of which I was the Chairman. Since 1978 the Committee has taken a considerable amount of evidence on African issues . Members of the Senate will recall the Committee's report on Zimbabwe which was tabled in 1980 and its report on Namibia which was tabled in August 1982. In December 1983 I also presented a report on the provision of development assistance and humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa. This was the first of two reports that the Committee will present on the Horn region. The second report will be tabled next month, I hope, and will deal with regional conflict and super-power involvement in the Horn of Africa. The report on aid was produced so that the conclusions and recommendations could be made available to the Jackson Committee before it finalised its deliberations on Australia's overseas aid program. On 8 December when speaking to the report on Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa, I pointed out that the Committee made the following recommendation: The Committee considers that valid reasons exist for the upgrading of Australia 's representation in Ethiopia and recommends that consideration be given to the establishment of a mission resident in Addis Ababa. The Committee is cognisant that financial constraints and Australia's other representational priorities will be factors associated with such a decision. As is the case with other countries with which Australia has diplomatic relations the Committee notes that the fact of having diplomatic relations does not of itself indicate approval of the other Government's policies or actions. The Committee made that recommendation for a number of reasons, including the fact that Ethiopia was the fourth-largest recipient of Australian aid in Africa in 1982-83, and it was clear to the Committee that Australia's diplomatic post in Nairobi was unable efficiently to monitor aid activities in the Horn of Africa because of a lack of resources. A number of allegations were made to the Committee about misappropriation and misuse of aid in Ethiopia. It did appear that there was a need for increased staff resources to enable a more thorough on the ground check on aid contributions. However, the major recommendation of the Committee which is of particular significance related to Australia's representation in the Indian Ocean region is that: Consideration be given to opening a post at Mauritius to promote Australia's interests in Mauritius itself and among the island states of the Indian Ocean. In the Committee's view such a post would be a more rational use of resources than exists at present and would improve considerably our ability to promote our interests in this strategically important region. Some of the reasons for making this recommendation were: Firstly, there has been considerable competition among the major powers for port facilities in and around the Indian Ocean in recent years; secondly, Australia has a significant expatriate population from Mauritius and the Seychelles; and, thirdly, Australian tourism in the area and especially to Mauritius has been growing steadily over the years. The Committee also looked at the possibility of Qantas Airways Ltd flying to Mauritius. If this occurs, and there is every reason to believe that it may, it will be of even greater significance for Australia. Therefore, the Committee is extremely pleased that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden, announced on 19 February 1984 that Australia would establish resident diplomatic representation in Mauritius as recommended by the Committee. Mr Hayden's statement read: The establishment of a High Commission in Port Louis, the capital of Mauritius, reflected Australia's growing interest in the Indian Ocean region, as well as the cordial bilateral relations which exist between Australia and Mauritius . . . The High Commission in Port Louis would be Australia's first diplomatic post in an Indian Ocean Island State. Its establishment reflected the fact that Australia has important national interests in the Indian Ocean region. At present Australia has a non-resident High Commissioner accredited to Mauritius from Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Mauritius has maintained a High Commission in Canberra since 1977. Australia provides a modest development assistance programme to Mauritius, and maintains both trade and migration links. The statement continued: Mr Hayden recalled that he had been host to a visit by the Mauritian Minister for Foreign Affairs last December, and had hoped to make a return visit early this year before he had cancelled a series of African visits. He believed the establishment of a resident High Commission in Port Louis would add to the substance of Australia's relations with Mauritius and with the Indian Ocean region. It is not often that a committee's recommendations are acted upon so promptly and I congratulate the Government on this initiative. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 1 December 1983, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 24 May 1983, on motion by Senator Martin: That the Senate take note of the statement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 17 November 1983, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia)(5.56) —There is very little in the Government's response to the report of the inquiry of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that I can feel positive about. There is one exception. The Government said: 'Few international issues have aroused the same intensity of feeling or had a greater impact on Australian foreign policy in recent years than events in East Timor. This is understandable. East Timor is only 1,000 kilometres (in fact, it is even closer than that) from Australia, and Australians can hardly be expected to be indifferent to the fate of a territory so close to their own shores'. Exactly. Yet in its response to the findings and recommendations of the Senate report on East Timor the Government seems intent on being vague and non- committal. The well worn phrases like 'the Indonesian Government is well aware of the Australian Government's position on human rights issues' are simply meaningless in the context of what has happened and what is happening to the East Timorese today. Anyone who reads the Government's response to the Senate Committee's recommendations will be appalled at the lack of substance in that response. This lack of substance will be plain to everyone. For that reason I do not propose to answer them in detail here. Instead, I wish to comment on the way in which the authors of this response, tabled in the name of the Government, have misused the report of the parliamentary delegation in an attempt to belittle the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. As Chairman of the Senate Committee, and as a member of the parliamentary delegation, I cannot escape this responsibility. The Government's response is written in a way that suggests the Senate report is out of date and incorrect when compared with the findings of the parliamentary delegation. I want to show the Senate that this is a false judgment. Firstly, let us look at the Government's claim about the sources of the Senate Committee's evidence: The Senate Committee's report was largely prepared from evidence given by refugees, much of it relating to the immediate aftermath of the Indonesian invasion. This statement has two misleading aspects. It implies that the report is based on suspect evidence that cannot be sustained, and it further suggests that the evidence was out of date. The problems associated with the sources of evidence were clearly outlined in the report. I can do no better than to quote from page xii of the report: The Committee has felt justified in relying on (in camera) evidence where- I emphasise this- Clear and consistent patterns have emerged or where corroboration from other sources is available. The Committee continued: The Committee had access to a large amount of contemporary or near contemporary evidence from Australian and international organisations with access to East Timor and from individuals who have visited the area. Great care was taken in the use of material from refugees. I categorically reject any imputation that assessments of conditions and events in East Timor contained in the final report are suspect. Where doubt existed about particular claims that doubt has been recorded. Concerning the imputation that the evidence was largely out of date, let us remember that the Senate Committee was established in late 1981 and set a closing date of 30 March 1982 for written submissions. The Committee received a substantial body of evidence from Timorese and other sources covering the period up to the end of 1981 and some concerning the first part of 1982. A number of Timorese, in the course of oral testimony, drew on letters received from family members still in East Timor in 1982. Hearings were completed by September 1982. It is true that some evidence related to the immediate aftermath of the invasion but the Committee heard evidence on events and conditions for all intervening years. Besides, the immediate past is of great importance in understanding Timorese attitudes to this forced integration into Indonesia, even if excesses have lessened at particular times. Some would argue that the disastrous Indonesian pacification programs of 1977- 79 or the 'fence of legs' military operation of late 1981 were issues of the past and no longer relevant. If we were to accept that argument, then we might also argue that Jews should forget about the holocaust or Cambodians should forget about what happened to them between 1969 and 1979 because those events are of the past. Of course we do not do that. Those events have seared the consciousness of the world. In the minds of Timorese, the events experienced by them since the Indonesian invasion are of comparable proportions. The conduct of the Indonesian army in East Timor since the invasion, up until the end of 1981, must be considered as an indicator of what might happen in the future. Renewed Indonesian military operations which began in August 1983 are a sad and tragic proof of this claim. I now turn to the Government's use of the parliamentary delegation's report in its response to the Senate report. In my dissent from the report of the parliamentary delegation, I predicted that the report would: . . . inevitably entice many of those who read it towards certain conclusions. I do not believe that some of these conclusions will necessarily be justified by the experiences of the Delegation, especially in relation to the situation in East Timor. Exactly this has happened. The popular media view of the delegation findings is that resistance to integration is very small and what resistance there is has little support among the East Timorese population and that the Indonesian Government, through its economic programs, is proving that it has the interests of the East Timorese at heart. The Government is in danger of affirming that fallacy. The Government response to the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee report implies that because the parliamentary delegation was in East Timor in July-August 1983 and because Australian parliamentarians were there in person that any findings of the Senate inquiry be tested against those of the parliamentary delegation. If honourable senators take the trouble to read both reports, instead of relying on media stories and members' tabling statements, they might be surprised to learn that the Parliamentary delegations's report offers no significant contradiction to the findings of the Senate Committee report. I am talking here about human rights and conditions in the territory as opposed to the Senate Committee's recommendations for action about which there is considerable difference, but that is another matter. If the authors of this Government response treated these reports honestly, they would conclude that the parliamentary delegation confirmed many of the findings of the Senate inquiry. For the information of the Senate and the Government I would remind everyone that I did not disagree with the facts which were buried, or conveniently lost, in the tendentious nature of the delegation report. I now list some of the findings which coincide with those of the Senate Committee inquiry. The delegation report noted on page 15: It is clear that international interest will remain in East Timor until personal rights and freedoms are restored. It further noted on page 34: The delegation considers that the Australian Government should continue to raise human rights issues with the Indonesian Government where clear evidence of breaches is available Obviously the authors of the response did not go through the delegation report. On page 33 of the delegation report, one finds that the delegation considered that violations of human rights 'have continued'. The delegation was unable to determine the scale of such violations. That is in the delegation report, the Morrison report. On that same page, the delegation reported that mail into and out of East Timor is censored and that movement into and out of East Timor is controlled. The delegation was 'fully aware' that Indonesian authorities had refused to allow some people to rejoin their families outside Indonesia. This, said the delegation, was, 'a denial of their human rights'. The delegation visited the prison island of Atauro and concluded that: The very presence of detainees without trial on Atauro Island is an example of human rights violations which are still evident. (pages 32-33) With the indulgence of the Senate I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the quotes I would have included in my speech had I had the time to do so. Leave granted. The quotations read as follows- Despite the claim of Indonesian officials that those on the island had either given themselves up or had been relocated for their own safety (see Appendix 25, page 177), the delegation noted that they, quote, 'are obviously being held there against their will' unquote (page 52), on page 179 of the parliamentary delegation's report, in the record of the visit to Atauro, you will find, and I quote, 'Mr Morrison asked for anyone who had voluntarily come down from the mountains to give themselves up, no-one came forward'. The delegation considered it important for International Red Cross to have access to all detention centres in East Timor (page 33). (It is worth noting here that ICRC has only had very limited access to detention centres in East Timor. With the exception of Atauro, no prison has been visited by ICRC since November 1982). Like the senate inquiry, the parliamentary delegation did conclude there was no famine in East Timor at the time its report was written. The delegation did consider, however, that there is a continuing need for 'food supplementation programs' by international relief agencies (page 68). The delegation noted food shortages and signs of malnutrition in some places it visited . . . in particular in Quelicai which has long been described by Timorese as a serious food shortage area. Governor Carrascalao's claim that his first priority was the food situation ( page 67) would appear to confirm that food remains a key issue in the material aspects of East Timor. The delegation also considered that the so-called resettlement program in East Timor caused 'considerable political, social and economic disruption' (page 74) and that 'problems associated with resettlement are therefore a matter of continuing concern' (page 75). I will return to this question of resettlement and its relationship to the economy and food production. The senate committee was unable to confirm a common Timorese claim that the beneficiaries of Indonesian economic development were largely Indonesians, not Timorese. It is worth noting then that in Quelicai, a food shortage area, the parliamentary delegation observed that the new section of the village was ' obviously dominated by people from elsewhere (sic) in Indonesia' (page 47). The delegation observed in Dilor and 'most places' visited, modern style houses ' built for Indonesian officials' (page 46). Timorese have always claimed that despite the presence of Timorese in the administration, the real power in East Timor lay with the Indonesian military. This has been effectively confirmed by the parliamentary delegation report. On page 66 you will find that, quote 'there is a special co-ordinating committee for the administration of East Timor, chaired by the Department of Defence' unquote, the chairman of this committee since 1978, is none other than General Benny Murdani, currently head of the Indonesian armed forces and architect of Indonesia's invasion of East Timor. The government's response reports on the parliamentary delegation's findings on current conditions in the Territory as if to imply the delegation contradicted the senate inquiry report. This is not so. Having reported on Timorese, Indonesian and Australian claims about the economy, the senate report concluded: 'the Indonesian authorities do appear to be making significant efforts to develop agriculture, industry, health and education as well as improving economic infrastructure such as roads and housing'. (page 84) However, the senate report also stated that in the absence of a more systematic examination of conditions and of reliable statistical information, it is impossible to test the overall validity of claims that material conditions have improved dramatically. (Extension of time granted) I could go through a whole series of quotes from the delegation's report that confirm or agree with the Senate Committee's report on the violation of human rights. That is what the Senate Standing Committee was dealing with-the violation of human rights. The authors of the Government's response have the temerity to try to use the Delegation's report in a manner which gives the impression that it contradicts the Senate report on these issues. I can go through those examples page after page. They are on pages 32, 33 and 177. I will have them incorporated in Hansard, when I reach the conclusion of what I have to say, so that they are on record for everyone to see. While the parliamentary delegation did see evidence of economic development programs, there was no way it could make a detailed assessment of the real impact and advantage of those programs. As a delegation, we were absolutely dependent on the information and claims of Indonesians and Timorese in the Indonesian administration. What we saw with our eyes could provide only superficial impressions. Indeed, there has been criticism of the Senate report's conclusions on Indonesian economic programs from pro-Timorese sources. The British organisation, TAPOL, which gave evidence to the Senate inquiry, argues that any consideration of so-called economic development in East Timor cannot be divorced from a detailed investigation of the so-called resettlement program which is, in TAPOL's words, 'The backbone of Indonesia's security'. I accept that criticism and I draw your attention to the Hansard record of evidence for the Senate inquiry, in particular the attachment beginning on page 715, headed 'Notes on counter insurgency', which details the origins of the resettlement program. As I pointed out earlier, the parliamentary delegation conceded that the resettlement program had been disruptive. That is on page 75. However, except for general comments from some officials, the delegation did not collect any definitive information on the origins and administration of the so-called resettlement villages. In my view, and in the view of the Senate Committee report, serious questions about the motives of and the real benefits to East Timorese of Indonesian development programs remain. But, even if those questions are eventually answered, and indeed affirm Indonesian Government claims, we still cannot say that the East Timorese have therefore lost their right to self- determination. This is, and remains, the most important issue. It remains for me to point out an enormous irony about the claims that the Senate report is out of date. The one area on which the parliamentary delegation was able to comment and on which the Senate could not was the state of the war in East Timor. It is ironical that before the parliamentary delegation's report was discussed, let alone tabled, it was flung out of date by the launching of a new Indonesian military offensive in East Timor in August 1983. As I have indicated elsewhere, I have reluctantly concluded that preparations for this offensive were under way at the very time we were in East Timor. Not only does this date the delegation's findings, but also it suggests we were grossly misled by our hosts. The Government's response to the Senate Committee's report on East Timor is a great disappointment to me as Chairman of the Committee. It will also be a great disappointment to the Timorese, to a large number of Australians and to the increasing number of concerned Indonesians, not to mention the rank and file of the Australian Labor Party. It is difficult to describe the Government's response as being little short of a mockery of the obligation of a government to respond to committee reports. By being seen to have little to say, the Government faces the danger of making a fool of itself in the eyes of the Australian public at large. The issue of East Timor is not going to go away as events there in the past few months have demonstrated. The Government will have to face up to that fact. How can we take seriously the suggestion that the best way to help the Timorese is to work with and through the Indonesian Government when that Government has been guilty of so many lies and crimes in East Timor? We should not be trying to save the face of the Indonesian Government, but that is what we are doing, and at the expense of our own. How much longer is the Australian community going to tolerate what even my colleague Senator Hamer called appeasement when he was interviewed on AM on 9 September last year? How can we hope to be taken seriously in international forums on issues of peace and human rights when we have chosen to cover up gross violations of such rights by one neighbour in its actions against another of its neighbours? It behoves the Government to take a leaf out of the Indonesians' book when they released a Press statement at the United Nations on another subject and at another time. I refer to a statement by Dr Mochtar, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, on 28 October 1983. I think it is worth noting. The statement reads: The Indonesian Government was shocked at receiving the news of the bloody coup d'etat in Granada, a member state of the United Nations and of the Non-Aligned Movement, which has resulted in the death of Prime Minister R. Maurice Bishop, some of his Cabinet members and other national leaders. The Indonesian Government deplores the fact that foreign armed intervention has taken place following those tragic events and urges that all foreign troops be withdrawn as expeditiously as possible. The Indonesian Government is of the view that the right of the Granadian people to self-determination should be respected so that they could determine the political and economic system of their own choice, without outside intervention and interference. That was said by the Indonesians at the United Nations. It is a pity they did not apply it to their thinking on the situation in East Timor. It is a pity that the people who responded to the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee's report did not do a bit more homework on the parliamentary delegation's report which I dissented from for one main reason, because of its tendentious nature, drawing people to the wrong conclusions. I have been proved to be correct in that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented? Senator WATSON —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I do. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —I speak in my capacity as a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and in the absence of the Chairman, Senator George Georges, who unfortunately had a fall and has been admitted to hospital. I use this opportunity of the broadcast of these proceedings to wish him a speedy recovery. On Tuesday in the Senate committee rooms a media conference was held and a statement released on a report entitled 'Medifraud: A professionally induced cancer' by an outside group known as the Rupert Public Interest Movement. The Public Accounts Committee was misrepresented in the media release and in the report. The Rupert Movement documents allege that the Public Accounts Committee, in its medical fraud inquiry, neglected to address in its progress report the issue of the quality of senior management in the Department of Health; secondly, that it was inactive during 1983; and, thirdly, that it failed to protect key witnesses. Madam Acting Deputy President, I have a document, which I do not propose to read, refuting each of these points in detail and I seek leave to table the relevant documents. Leave granted. Senator WATSON —I propose briefly to take each of these allegations in turn. It is not true to say that the Committee's progress report neglected to address the quality of senior management in the Department of Health. In fact, departmental management relating to medical fraud and overservicing is a major issue of chapter 5 of the report. Two of the Committee's recommendations, numbers 5 and 6 , are particularly relevant. Recommendation No. 5 states: The Committee recommends that the senior management structure and personnel of the Department be comprehensively reviewed . . . Recommendation 6 states: The Committee recommends that the lines of responsibility within the Department of Health be redefined and its management philosophy altered . . .independent management expertise be provided to the Department to assist (these tasks). It is not true to say that the Committee was inactive in its inquiry during 1983 . In the tabled document I have listed the major events of the inquiries during 1983. They include a private meeting with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Director-General of Health; public hearings with representatives of the Australian Medical Association; a private meeting with the Special Minister of State and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police; in camera meetings with the Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Commonwealth Crown Solicitor and the Secretary to the Attorney-General's Department; nationwide advertisements and correspondence seeking submissions; and the tabling of the Department of Finance minute of the progress report. I could continue listing events of the medical fraud inquiry during 1983, but the details will be in the tabled documents. Honourable senators will be aware, of course, that the Public Accounts Committee was concerned with other matters as well as the medical fraud inquiry during 1983. In that year it presented 19 separate reports, and its current references total 22. The details will be in the tabled documents. The final allegation of the report concerning failure to protect witnesses is one that the Committee and I regard with the greatest concern. Let me assure honourable senators, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee, that the matter of the protection of witnesses is of critical importance and concern to the Committee. The Committee has always shown its concern in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In the course of the medical fraud inquiry, after a number of officers of the Department of Health advised that they wished to present submissions or to give evidence as individuals, the Committee sought a legal opinion on the status of individuals and their evidence before the Committee and the protection afforded to them by the Public Accounts Committee Act. The opinion of the Committee's legal adviser, the Hon. Mr Justice C. B. Toose, QC, CBE, was incorporated in the transcript of evidence of the first public meeting of the medical fraud and overservicing inquiry on 1 July 1982. A copy of this opinion, which includes reference to those provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 relating to the privilege and protection of witnesses, is included in the documents that I have tabled. As a further example of the Committee's concern in this area, at a private meeting in May last year on the medical fraud inquiry, the Committee pursued with the Director-General of Health the career prospects and current placement of one of the witnesses referred to in the Rupert document. The Committee was assured by the Director-General that the officer's prospects had not been affected. The Committee's questions at the meeting with the Director-General did not follow an approach from the witness concerned. Neither of the witnesses referred to in the Rupert document has approached the Committee for assistance. I wish to inform the Senate that having seen the Rupert report, the PAC has written to the Director-General of Health seeking a full response to all matters contained in the report. The Committee has also advised the Director-General that some matters will be pursued at a public hearing with the Department next Monday. I inform the Senate that the matters in respect of witnesses will be once more followed up. Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party)(6.20) —The Opposition believes that the objectives of the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984 and its mechanics are commendable and we support the Bill. It is appropriate that from time to time the Senate should have an opportunity to involve itself in a discussion surrounding the wool industry in Australia. After all, in the eyes of the rest of the world it is probably the oldest, and certainly the most typical, Australian industry. Even today it represents somewhere between 15 and 20 per cent of the total export earning capacity of this country. Consequently, it is appropriate that from time to time the House should involve itself in a discussion of the industry. The Bill seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to broaden the capacity of the Australian Wool Corporation to borrow funds. It proposes that the Corporation should be able to go outside the fairly restrictive areas of normal overdraft borrowing and term loans which are under quite tight ministerial control and look to other methods of borrowing money-hopefully at lower interest rates-in other words, at more attractive prices. It is hoped that it will then be able to enter the highly competitive field of world textile trade from a more advantageous standpoint. There is no doubt that the wool industry, perhaps more than any other industry, has demonstrated by its history a great measure of independence. In order to maintain its independence and competitive capacity in the world the industry needs every possible advantage in establishing funds. The second area in which the Bill is specifically involved will enable the Wool Corporation to exercise a wider choice for investment of funds for research in the industry. It is most important that these funds should be capable of being invested in the most productive areas. For many years research and promotion have been matters of great significance to the wool industry. Funds for the industry in this respect and for research in many other areas are not all that easy to come by. Consequently, the Bill, insofar as it widens the options for investment and enables perhaps a maximum earning capacity for those funds, will perform a necessary task. It is appropriate that honourable senators should pause to consider the value of research and promotion in keeping wool in the forefront of the world textile trade. Research in the wool industry in Australia in relatively recent years has brought about some amazing products. It has succeeded in producing a very lightweight material which is capable of competing in a whole range of other fields and other climates, as distinct from the original type of relatively heavy woollen product. Indeed, research has found that the woollen product has a capacity for washability in a machine which previously was not considered possible. It has been possible to establish fastness of colours, which at one time was not a particular capacity of woollen cloth. The industry has been able to promote the valuable characteristics of woollen fibre, its ability to stretch , its qualities of absorption and a whole range of other insulating qualities. Another great quality of wool is its non- inflammability. All these aspects have been identified and brought to the notice of the consuming world, in the first place chiefly through Australian research. This has been followed by the promotional aspects with which part of this Bill is concerned. The Opposition supports the Bill because clearly in both areas it will be seen to improve the efficiency and flexibility of the Australian Wool Corporation in its wide task of selling wool and of identifying those features of the product that make it increasingly saleable and competitive throughout the world. It must be recalled that the wool industry needs, and through legislation of this sort can achieve, ever wider access to markets around the world. It has the capacity through some of the provisions of this legislation to promote itself in a vast range of markets that have not always been open to it, sometimes through lack of funds. Certainly for more than half of last year because of poor market prices it was necessary on many occasions to borrow at extraordinarily expensive rates no less than $115m to maintain the market support fund. That fund is the very essence of the value of the Australian Wool Corporation. It represents an enormous industry . As I indicated earlier, it represents an industry which even today produces 15 to 20 per cent of Australia's export earning capacity. The industry is characterised on the Australian scene by the fact that it does not rely on subsidies. It certainly receives no protection. In fact, in a whole range of ways it very clearly suffers because of the protection of those elements it needs to use in its production and for which it has to pay a significant tariff. Senator Button —I am sorry to interrupt, Senator Scott, but this is a serious question. Could you identify the main elements of cost to the wool industry consequent upon tariffs. Would you say motor cars, for example? Senator SCOTT —I am referring to the protection relating to fertilisers, transport and a whole range of areas which can be identified as elements causing increments in the cost of wool production. These and many other increments certainly tend to reduce the competitiveness of the Australian wool producer in the world scene. As I was saying, it is a truly Australian industry and it stands on its own feet. It is probably the only area of production in which Australia produces the most and the best in the world. Consequently, we must regard the needs of this industry with very great seriousness and, I hope, a measure of generosity. The industry produces something in the vicinity of 5 million bales of wool annually. This represents a value of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion. The industry is a world leader in mechanisation and in the development of wool harvesting. In the handling and transport fields the industry has done a great deal to develop the most efficient methods in the world. I believe that the Australian Wool Corporation, whose borrowing capacity this Bill is seeking to increase, has a history of which we should be aware. Certainly I do not intend on this occasion to spend the amount of time necessary to relate that history, but I think it is worth casting our minds back to its beginning. It is worth while recognising the extraordinary significance of the Corporation not only to the wool producing industry in Australia but also to the manufacturing industry and the fabric industry in general around the world. The Australian Wool Corporation was the product of relatively bitter debate over the 1960s and even in the 1950s, as I know, having been a participant in it. There was a great debate as to whether a reserve price in this marketing situation was a good thing or whether it was moving too far away from the traditional free enterprise system. Ultimately, by 1970 the Australian Wool Commission had been developed, and within a couple of years that became the Australian Wool Corporation. The Wool Corporation has instituted virtually a reserve price system in the market place. It has established a presence in the market place which has been able to iron out the troughs and the peaks in the wool market. Significantly, this has been of great value not only to the wool producer but also to those people who manufacture the ultimate woollen product. When talking about the independence of this industry, it is interesting to note and important to recognise that it finances almost totally its own capacity to buy. The Wool Corporation is financed by a levy of 5 per cent of gross wool returns from the whole woollen producing community. There is a levy of 5 per cent for the market support fund, which is the life blood of the Australian Wool Corporation. A further 3 per cent of the gross return to wool growers from their product each year goes to promotion and research. In total, 8 per cent of the gross value of growers' wool goes into those two areas-the market support fund and the research and promotion funds. It might be appropriate for me to comment on the latest proposition of the Government in the area of promotion since part of this Bill refers to moneys that are relevant to that area. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in a Press release said that over the next five years the Government contribution for wool promotion would be 1.2 per cent of the gross value of the Australian clip. He said that this would amount to at least $25m in 1984-85. He went on to say that wool promotion spending was held at $20m over the past four years and that there was a downward trend under the Fraser Government. Of course, the latter assertion is not true. I am fascinated by the remark that wool promotion has been held at $20m over the past four years. Of course, there was a clear undertaking by the coalition Government that that figure should be $28m in 1983- 84. It was rather staggering to the wool industry to find that although the present Government undertook to match the figure, it did not do so. In reality, in 1983-84 the wool industry lost some $8m of promotion funds. The statement that the Government contribution over the next five years will be 1.2 per cent of the gross value of the Australian clip is worth examining in some slight detail. It appears to be attractive and wool growers will have to watch it to see exactly what it is and what it is worth. Clearly, 1.2 per cent of the gross value of the Australian clip will be a significantly variable amount. That amount, incidentally, is estimated to be worth $25m in 1984-85. As the former Government would have provided $28m in 1983-84, that represents a loss of $3m. That will always be a variable amount, and unless the price of wool , which is clearly relevant to the aggregate amount of money, increases annually by an amount in excess of the rate of inflation, a lesser amount will be available in real terms for promotion. I do not believe that this matter has been looked at in sufficient depth. I conclude my remarks by saying once again that this Bill, insofar as it seeks to broaden the capacity and the ability of the Australian Wool Corporation to borrow funds and insofar as it widens the investment opportunities and options referable to investment in research funds, seeks to do the sorts of things that ought to be done. It is an industry that stands on its own feet. It provides basically all or a great measure of those moneys that are necessary for its promotion and development. It is an industry that is significantly Australian. It is virtually unsupported in a world market situation where subsidised surpluses and various other export incentives are creating a somewhat unreal market circumstance. It is an industry that needs the real support of Australian government. I am glad to say that in the main this Bill gives the sort of support that we want to see, the sort of support, for instance, that we advanced to the Australian Wheat Board not very long ago. But I believe that wool growers should observe very carefully indeed what 1.2 per cent of the gross value of wool ultimately will mean from year to year. It may well be a significantly changing amount. If the price of wool does not increase in relation to the rate of inflation it may well be a real loss rather than a real increase. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.42) —I take this opportunity not only to address the Senate on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1984, the general thrust of which appears to be welcomed by all, but also to make some comments about the state of the wool industry in Australia. I think it is important that we view this legislation and the industry together for the reason that the effects of this Bill, which is designed essentially to clarify the borrowing powers of the Australian Wool Corporation and to widen the scope of the opportunities of investment by the Wool Research Trust Fund, are inextricably linked together with the performance of the wool industry. This Bill is an attempt by the Government to affect in a positive fashion the performance of the wool industry, which is important to Australia. But one could well ask: Is this the most appropriate form of assistance to the industry at this time? One could also well ask: What are the problems facing the industry and what is the current status of the industry? Each of these questions needs to be looked at very closely before it is assumed that the steps proposed by the Government will provide some type of cure-all for the ills of the wool industry. We should consider the importance of the wool industry. We need to take a look at the wool and wool textile manufacturing industries to gauge as accurately as possible the sort of condition that each of those industries finds itself in today. The demand for apparel wool this year is expected to increase as a result of continued recovery in the world economy. Textile activity in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is expected to improve, with the demand for raw wool expected to increase at a rate greater than that for synthetic fibres. But such a potentially rosy picture is dimmed somewhat by the realisation that there is only a very limited market for Australian wool garments in such places as the United States of America and only moderate increases in demand are likely from European Economic Community countries. There is expected to be a small increase in Australian Wool Corporation stocks this year. However, wool production levels in Australia this year are expected to decline some 3 per cent to around 685 kilotonnes. Even though stocks held by the Australian Wool Corporation are anticipated to reach a level of 1.5 million bales-an increase of around 18 per cent on last year and hence the need for this legislation-the position of the wool industry, especially in the export area, is still far from that of a few years ago. Wool exports three years ago-that is, 1980-81-accounted for some 9 per cent of our total export earnings, a value of $ 1,845m. In 1981-82 wool exports earned $1,917m, about 9.6 per cent of the value of all of our exports. It may also be said in passing that wool is but one of the rural commodities which are exported and that taken all together agricultural products account for a little over 40 per cent of Australia's total export income. Prices for wool, whether greasy wool or wool products such as textiles and yarns, have increased recently so the total value figures in terms of dollars earned from export can, I submit, be somewhat misleading. I suggest that a look at the volume of wool textile production will give a better indication of the current state of the wool industry. Total production in 1981-82 was 21.5 million kilos, which rose slightly last year-that is, 1982-83-to 21.8 million kilos. However, the first six months of this financial year-from July to December 1983- saw 10.9 million kilos produced. This was an important drop of 700,000 kilos from the production levels of the corresponding period last year. Considering that production of yarn for the domestic market increased in this period by 400, 000 kilos, there has been an effective decline in exports of wool textiles of 1. 1 million kilos in just seven months. Such figures are certainly cause for alarm . Given that these figures illustrate an obvious decline in our exporting of wool , yarn and textiles, it is necessary to examine possible causes for such a decline and then, in the light of this, to look again at the proposed action to be undertaken by the Government. A number of problems face the wool textile industry and I wish to identify each of these. There is the problem of the Australian dollar; the withdrawal of the export expansion grant; the pre-sale dumping of wool; and the recent actions by the pastoralist company, Elders. We have seen in recent times a strengthening of the Australian dollar on international markets. The effect of last year's substantial devaluation has been heavily modified. This presents special problems for exporters, as I am sure all of us here are well aware. It has been suggested to me by someone in the wool textile industry-I must say that this is certainly not an industry-wide attitude-that a solution that would possibly offset this strengthening of the dollar would be a lowering of the floor price of wool. Whilst such a move, I acknowledge, may be unpopular with some, nevertheless I urge the Government, through the Australian Wool Corporation, to investigate the possible effects of such a move were it to be adopted. The important thing is that something must be done, and fairly soon, to reverse this trend of falling exports. Of the other factors that I mentioned perhaps the most detrimental to the performance of the industry in the export market has been the withdrawal of the export expansion grant. The withdrawal of the grant has hit hardest the processing sector since it has limited and in most cases halted or even reversed expansion by this sector overseas. This has been a tremendous blow for wool processing offers a great opportunity for regional development of processing plants. Such plants, however, need the help of government and the export grant was a very good vehicle for government giving aid to the processing industry. As all of us are no doubt aware, the rural economy of this nation is much more often damaged by environmental problems, notably by drought. The hardships presented by the environment must be limited to as great an extent as possible. The expansion of overseas markets can at least boost finance in the processing sector, finance which can be used to fund research in overcoming environmental problems. I suggest that the Government also examine the possible reintroduction of the export expansion grant. A third problem is the so-called pre-sale dumping of wool. I know that the Australian Wool Processors Council is very wary of pre-sale dumping. Briefly, what can occur is that wool is compressed into a tri-pack whereby wool that would normally constitute three bales is compressed into just one. To the Council such a move has no value whatsoever and wool growers and processors alike suffer because they are placed at a disadvantage because of the problems of handling this wool by certain operators overseas. Wool that is so compressed takes a considerable time to expand to its normal volume. The practice of pre- sale dumping of wool, I believe, should be looked at very carefully. The final matter of concern to all sections of the wool industry is the recent action taken by Elders in allowing Poland to default on its latest wool purchases. Such action threatens in a very real way the stability of a century- old method of wool broking and selling in Australia and should be a matter of some concern to the Government. This action puts at risk all but the very large wool brokers. I must say that the action of Elders was a brave one. A risk was taken. We trust it will not be necessary too often in the future to take similar risks but the problem with such action is that the smaller houses will not be able to absorb such a blow and remain afloat. This, then, is a fourth area where government concern should be expressed. The Government, no doubt on advice from the Australian Wool Corporation, has opted to fight declining exports of wool and wool products by granting more money and power to raise money to the Wool Corporation. The effectiveness of such a decision must be viewed in the light of the functions of the Wool Corporation. The Corporation is a statutory body, as my colleague Senator Scott mentioned, designed for the purpose of assisting the orderly and efficient marketing of wool both within Australia and overseas, organised through the International Wool Secretariat. The Corporation hopes by such assistance and advertising to stimulate the demand for wool. It has done this very successfully . These are the functions of the Corporation and, I believe, should remain so. The actual disposal of wool should continue to be handled by commercial firms. This is not an area for operation by the Australian Wool Corporation. Any such operation would be counter-productive. I believe the Corporation should restrict its operations to those areas in which it has an excellent and a proven record. Two years ago the Minister responsible withdrew the power of the Corporation to engage in the processing of wool. This status, I believe, should be maintained. The Government, by this legislation, is seeking to grant to the Corporation extended powers to finance the promotion of wool overseas. This is certainly to be applauded as wool continues to face strong competition from synthetic fibres. The objective of promotion, in close association with the International Wool Secretariat, is to achieve price premiums at which wool remains competitive with other fibres. Government contributes to promotion. In effect, this is what the proposed legislation change amounts to. Government contributions are vital to any forward planning, the framework of which must necessarily be there for two to three years duration. In summary, I must say that while I support this Bill I do so with the reservation that although it may have been a necessary condition for improving export markets for wool it should in no way be seen as being sufficient. A number of other problems face the wool industry, each of which deserves equal attention by this Government. I hope the Government will take action but I nevertheless support the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.56) —I intend to speak for longer than four minutes on the Wool Industry Amendment Bill. I will not curtail my remarks but will be forced to continue them tomorrow. The Australian Democrats commend the Government on the introduction of this Bill and will be supporting its passage through this place. The Bill's enactment will, as other speakers have already said, enable the Australian Wool Corporation to seek funds from additional sources which will, as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) pointed out in his second reading speech, enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Corporation's activities. I wish not to criticise the Bill but rather to question the Minister's stated reasons for its necessity. When one goes through the second reading speech and sorts it out it appears to blame the whole situation on what the Minister calls depressed market conditions rather than address the lack of action by this Government in certain areas and the effect of other government actions on the wool industry. One of the important areas that the wool industry has had to contend with is the constant fluctuations in the value of the Australian dollar. In the six months prior to the floating of the dollar in December last year the dollar revalued by up to 15 per cent on a wool trade weighted index so that the local merino type wool was being quoted up to 50c a kilogram dearer than its South African counterparts. That, I believe, would certainly show to anybody in the Senate why we would run into difficulties, particularly with the operation of the South African market. As a result of that fluctuation up to that time, in the four-month period following the opening of the wool sales in July last year the Australian Wool Corporation consistently purchased more than 30 per cent of the catalogue, boosting its stock pile by more than 400,000 bales to 1.3 million . Such a rate of buying is reasonable, looking at this Bill, because it exhausted the Corporation's support fund and forced it to borrow some $40m off- shore and to make preparations for a further $150m loan on the domestic market. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being near the hour of 7 p.m., to enable the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast its news bulletin, under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland)(7.00) —I want to put on the public record tonight my deep concern about the procedures required for adequate cyclone warnings to be given to communities in northern Australia. I will speak particularly about north Queensland which, as honourable senators will know, is familiar territory to me. However, I do consider that my remarks will have a familiar ring to them for communities in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Last Wednesday the Burketown post office received an urgent telex from the Brisbane Tropical Warning Centre that Severe Tropical Cyclone Kathy was located in the Gulf of Carpentaria and that the Bureau of Meteorology would be commencing three-hourly weather reports. Phone calls made to Brisbane by the Shire Clerk at that stage indicated that there could be intense tidal wave activity and that the community had better be prepared. As Burketown has been cut from the rest of Australia since 1 January, because of flooding, this created considerable concern in this small community of approximately 300 people . Furthermore, it would have taken up to five hours to organise evacuation by air, so one can appreciate that this was a very serious situation for the residents of Burketown. They had also been told that for the next 24 hours the Australian Broadcasting Corporation would be broadcasting hourly, but apparently for various reasons this did not occur as the Bureau of Meteorology had hoped. Over the next 24 hours there was considerable delay between the time of plotting the cyclone and relaying the warnings and the receipt of those messages in Burketown. They were being relayed partly by the ABC and partly by telex from the Bureau in Brisbane. For example, reports could take two hours or more to be transmitted. The information coming to the people sitting in Burketown waiting to hear just what was happening to Cyclone Kathy could have been more than two hours old. I doubt whether many honourable senators have ever sat up all night, as I have, waiting for cyclone warnings. Quite frankly, I wonder how many Bureau of Meteorology officials in Brisbane have sat through the night waiting for tropical warning messages. Perhaps if they had this experience they would have a better understanding of the complaints of the Burke Shire Clerk. The situation concerning Cyclone Kathy was further complicated by the fact that the Darwin and Brisbane offices were jointly responsible for cyclone monitoring. It is rather surprising to me that, although cyclones do not recognise State borders, the Bureau of Meteorology does. Surely it should be possible to regularise proceedings in some way when cyclones are likely to be hovering over borders. On Thursday afternoon in Townsville I inquired as to who would be responsible for monitoring and conveying warnings-would it be Darwin or Brisbane ? People in north Queensland are rather cynical about all this because the Burke Shire is over 2,000 kilometres from Brisbane. I am not sure how far it is from Darwin. These vital messages are being relayed that considerable distance. The latest cyclone further highlights the need for urgent upgrading of the monitoring and communication of cyclone movements in northern Australia. Over the last 10 years major cyclones have devastated Townsville and Darwin. Other cyclones have caused serious damage in Gulf communities. For example, in 1976 Cyclone Ted destroyed approximately two-thirds of Burketown. No wonder the residents were very nervous last week. There has also been severe disruption to other communities on the Western Australian and Queensland northern coasts. The people of northern Australia want to be assured that the best technology and procedures are available for their protection. I have discussed this matter with the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, and I understand from him that there is to be a full and thorough investigation into the complaints made by the Burke Shire Clerk, Mr McCrae. Officers of the Bureau of Meteorology will visit Borroloola and Burketown in the next few weeks to gain at first hand some impressions from the residents about their experiences and the problems they are having with cyclone warnings. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Telecom Australia will be meeting in Brisbane this week to discuss the problems which arose in the transmission of warnings. The point I emphasise this evening is that many people in north Queensland have past experience of inadequate warning procedures and are therefore in complete sympathy with the people of the Gulf. It was suggested, rather unfortunately, in a news report that perhaps the Shire Clerk was being a little hysterical about the issue. That was a most unfortunate statement from the Bureau of Meteorology because the Shire Clerk was simply trying to get the best possible information for his community. I am sure that anybody who has actually sat through a cyclone would be inclined to be concerned about this matter. During Cyclone Althea in 1971 we had a particularly good example-in retrospect it seems amusing but it certainly was not at the time-of warnings coming through from Brisbane just too late to be of any use. A rather popular radio personality was giving out warnings on a regular basis and just as he was reading the latest cyclone warning from Brisbane, saying that the cyclone was a couple of hours away, he swore in no uncertain terms because the cyclone actually hit and his studio started to disintegrate around him. That might seem amusing this far on from the days of Cyclone Althea but it was certainly not amusing for him or the staff of that radio station and it was certainly not amusing for the thousands of people waiting for information. Of course their vital communication link was cut at that point and they had no further information. Up and down the coast similar stories are told of warnings being too late to be of any use. Another point is that the Bureau of Meteorology does convey its warnings in very inappropriate language. For instance, it will give details of the movement of a cyclone in terms of longitude and latitude and also by mentioning various capes up and down the coast. Unless one is a student of geography and has a large map of Queensland on the wall, that information is as good as useless to the majority of people. If a cyclone is in the vicinity, local commentators tend to use familiar place names. Everybody understands what is meant if the cyclone is said to be approximately 200 kilometres off Innisfail or due east of Innisfail. Everybody understands that language. If unknown capes up and down the coast are referred to, one needs to be a geography student to comprehend what is going on. In 1977 Cyclone Keith was moving in very unpredictable patterns and, as well as mentioning these unknown capes in several warnings, we found that because the patterns were unpredictable suddenly all warnings stopped for five hours. Apparently the reason for this was that the Bureau of Meteorology did not quite know what warnings to give out. One can imagine the effect of that silence on concerned communities for that five hours. I have discussed this matter with James Cook University staff over the last couple of days and a number of people at the university are particularly interested in the behaviour of cyclones. They believe, as most north Queenslanders do, that a cyclone warning centre should be located in north Queensland. It would seem that Townsville is the logical place. I have been told that that is not necessary because with the technology available we can monitor cyclone activity from almost anywhere in Australia. As I am not an expert, I cannot comment on this. All I can say is that the community is not convinced of that when warnings come through two hours late. If it is not a question of where the cyclone warning centre is located, it must be a question of how we convey that vitally important information. It has been said for as long as I have lived in Townsville that cyclone warnings should come from the region rather than from a capital city which is 1, 000 kilometres away. This would complement the work already being done in the region on tropical cyclones. There is already a centre for disaster studies at James Cook University. There is a cyclone testing unit and studies are being undertaken into tropical meteorology. Of course, the effect of tropical cyclones on the Great Barrier Reef is of considerable interest to the many people working on the Great Barrier Reef in north Queensland. At the very least I think there is an immediate need to re-examine the staffing levels at the Garbutt weather office and to look at the standard of equipment available. I am told that the equipment is of World War II vintage. To me it is unacceptable for an area that is so at risk in terms of tropical cyclones. There are usually up to six in the Queensland region each year. I think it should be an urgent priority of our Government to look at the needs of north Queensland, in particular, and northern Australia generally in terms of the management of cyclone warnings to ensure that adequate technology is being used and realistic communication is taking place. Finally, I urge that every consideration be given to upgrading the provision of radar. There is a definite need for radar equipment in the Gulf of Carpentaria. That would greatly assist in terms of the experience of Burketown last week. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(7.13) —This evening I draw attention to the lack of Federal electorates in Australia which are named after women. Indeed, one could conclude from the number of electorates which are named after women that few, if any, have contributed to public life in this country. Of course, that is not at all true. Many women have left their mark on Australian public life and on Australian society. I think the increase in the size of the House of Representatives which is to take place this year is a great opportunity to give more public recognition to women in our country. This year we face the prospect of some 23 extra Federal electorates being created. In addition to that there will be major changes to a number of other Federal electorates which could result in the renaming of those electorates. The changes to the electoral boundaries in the five mainland States particularly should offer some opportunity to increase the number of electorates named after Australian women of achievement. On my calculation, following quite extensive research, it appears that only four of the current 125 House of Representatives divisions are named after women . That represents less than 4 per cent of the total number of seats. The only four electorates that I have been able to identify that appear to be named directly or indirectly after women are Adelaide-that was basically named after the capital city of my State rather than the Queen Consort of William IV after which, in turn, it was named-Chisholm, in Victoria, which was named after Caroline Chisholm who did a great deal of work for immigrant women in Australia in the nineteenth century, Mackellar in New South Wales which is named after Dorothea Mackellar, the poetess who wrote, amongst other things, My Country and, of course, Tangney in Western Australia which is named after Dame Dorothy Tangney who was the first woman elected to the Senate. She was elected in 1943. From what I have been able to ascertain there are no Federal electorates named after women in either Queensland or Tasmania. I believe that, in the ideal situation, at least half of the new Federal electorates to be created this year should be named after women. I think that would raise somewhat the proportion of electorates so named from its current abysmal level. For too long, House of Representatives electorates have been named after geographical regions, male explorers, royalty or former members of parliament, and usually they have been males. The practice in Australia is certainly more original and more interesting, even as it is at the moment, than the practice which applies in other countries. For example, in the United States of America, the electorates in the House of Representatives are given numbers such as the first or fifteenth district of a State. I think that is basically the practice that applies in France. In Great Britain electorates tend to be named after localities and major towns. Given the existing situation we should take note of the fact that there have been many Australian women of public and social achievement and more of the electorates in the House of Representatives should bear the names of women. I think the practice should be looked at at the State level too. It seems that only in South Australia and one other State are there electorates named after women. I was able to identify one electorate out of 99 in New South Wales that is named after a woman. I think that is the electorate of Elizabeth. There are four or five in South Australia which are named after women. Beyond that it is not very easy to identify such electorates. I have written to the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Dr Hughes, about the matter. He has undertaken to draw the proposal to the attention of the electoral redistribution committees in each of the five mainland States where the extra electorates are to be created. I have also made a public call to individuals and groups to put forward names of women of achievement to local members of parliament and senators. In particular, I have asked political parties to put in submissions to electoral redistribution committees in their own States. I believe that the electoral redistribution committees are now operating in at least two States. Certainly the committee is operating in my State of South Australia. There will be two extra House of Representatives divisions in that State. I believe that at least one of them should be named after a woman. I have suggested that the names be chosen from such names as Mary Mackillop who was an educationalist in South Australia. She was the joint founder of the Sisters of St Joseph who have had a great record of achievement in education in country areas of South Australia and in the metropolitan area. Another name to be considered is that of Helen Mayo who was the first woman to be elected to a university council in Australia. She had the great distinction of founding the mothers and babies health association in our State and also founded St Ann's Women's College at Adelaide University. I have also put forward the name of Augusta Zadow who was the first woman inspector of factories in South Australia. She showed great concern and commitment in dealing with the problems faced by working women. The fourth name I have out forward is that of Ida Halley who was a medical officer and one of the earliest feminists in Australia. She was among the first women medical students at the University of Melbourne. Her great contribution was to establish the medical branch of the Education Department in South Australia in 1913. I am also very pleased to note that one trade union in South Australia has already taken up my suggestion and has put forward a name for consideration by the electoral redistribution committee in my State. I urge other honourable senators interested in this proposal to research names of women in their own States who have been great contributors in public life and to ensure that those names are put forward to the redistribution committees in their States. I think Western Australia has an excellent opportunity. Two extra seats are to be created in that State. It is interesting to note that the first Labor woman member of parliament in Australia, Mary Holman, was elected in Western Australia . For too long women's achievements in Australian public life have been overlooked. Naming electorates after women would underline their contributions to the community and would be a constant reminder of their impact on the community. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(7.20) —Yesterday the House of Representatives paid its respects to a former member of the House, Mr Frank Doyle. Mr Doyle was the member for Lilley from 1972 to 1974. Frank Doyle was a personal as well as a political friend of mine, and I would like to make some remarks this evening about Mr Doyle. In his early working life Frank Doyle was a locomotive engine driver. Prior to his election to Parliament 1972 he was the Secretary of the Queensland branch of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen. In 1972 he won the seat of Lilley from Kevin Cairns, who had been a Minister in the Government prior to that election. It was a very close result in Lilley. Kevin Cairns received 26,740 votes and Frank Doyle received 26,775 votes. So Frank Doyle won the seat of Lilley by a margin of 35 votes. I can remember at the time Fred Daly giving Frank Doyle the advice that now that he had won the seat he should work extra hard and with any sort of luck he would double his majority. Unfortunately for Frank Doyle, he did not double his majority of 35. In 1974 he lost the seat to Kevin Cairns by 1,233 votes. After Frank's defeat in 1974 he continued his link with the trade union movement when he became the Queensland Director of the Trade Union Training Authority. On 12 March this year Frank went to talk to a Queensland teachers' conference at the Professional Centre in the Brisbane suburb of Bardon. He was there in an official capacity as the Director of the Trade Union Training Authority in Queensland. While he was there he collapsed with a cerebral haemorrhage and was taken to the Royal Brisbane hospital but did not survive. Frank Doyle was a thorough gentleman. He put the needs of others before himself . I can remember on the Sunday morning after the Federal election in 1974 he telephoned me at my home. He acknowledged that he had lost Lilley but was concerned about his electorate secretary, who would lose her job with his defeat . He asked me if I was successful in the Senate election that had been held on the same day as the House of Representatives election, would I employ his staff member. Subsequently I found out that I had not been successful so I could not do so. I will never forget his care for his secretary's future when he saw his short career as a member of the House of Representatives come to an end. Frank leaves a widow, Eileen, and six children-five boys and one girl. When Frank was the member for Lilley, Eileen was the de facto member when Frank was in Canberra. Frank will be missed tremendously by his family. If it is any solace to members of the family I remind them that he will be missed by his many friends in the trade union movement, the Australian Labor Party and the community in general. He was, as I said earlier, a thorough gentleman. I extend to Eileen and to Frank's family my sympathy in their bereavement. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.25) —Tonight Senator Reynolds raised the very serious problems for the people not only in her electorate in north Queensland but also in northern Australia generally of inadequate warning and monitoring of cyclones in that area. I am sure that the people of northern Australia are indebted to Senator Reynolds for bringing these problems to the attention of the Senate, and indeed to the attention of the Government. I will ensure that Senator Reynolds' suggestions about improvements to this monitoring process are taken up by the Government. I am sure that Senator Reynolds will be able to report some improvements in this area before very long. Senator Maguire raised a very interesting and creative approach towards the naming of the new electorates that are to be created throughout Australia. He drew our attention to the fact that very few-I think he said only four-Federal electorates have been named in recognition of women who have contributed to public life in Australia. I hope that Senator Maguire's campaign is a successful one and that political parties and electoral committees will take his suggestions on board. It is a source of great encouragement and satisfaction to the women in this place that we have an increasing number of women here who are bringing to the attention of the Parliament and the Australian public generally the contributions that Australian women have made throughout the decades. We also have our male colleagues equally concerned to rectify the omissions of history and to give recognition to those very many outstanding Australian women who have contributed to our society in a very constructive way. I certainly wish Senator Maguire success in his campaign. Senator Collard —We have a Ryan already. Senator RYAN —Senator Collard has pointed out that there is a Federal electorate in his State of Queensland named after Ryan. I think that the President has indicated that to me, but I cannot be so vain as to assume that that has any connection with me. Unfortunately, I cannot claim any direct relationship with the Ryan after whom that electorate was named, although no doubt all Ryans were related at some stage. I hope that Senator Maguire's suggestion will be taken up because it is an important way of recognising the contribution to Australian life. Senator Colston made some remarks in appreciation of the late Mr Frank Doyle, who was a former member for Lilley and a noted trade unionist. I am sure that his remarks will be appreciated by the late Frank Doyle's family and friends. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.27 p.m. The following papers were presented: Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act-Orders 1983-MQ7-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1984 Control Scheme. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination made under the Real Property Ordinance. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 695) Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce upon notice, on 7 March 1984: What decision(s) other than that referred to in my Question on Notice No. 383 ( see Hansard, 8 November 1983, page 2327) were examined in that context by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The only other decision examined was that by the Full Bench of the Federal Court in the matter of Putale Pty Ltd. Senator Walsh —On 28 February 1984 (Hansard, page 12) Senator Maguire asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the finding of the Asprey Taxation Review Committee some years ago, appointed by the McMahon Government, that 'the effective discussion of taxation policy in this country is hampered at every turn by the lack of reliable data about the distribution of income and wealth'. In view of the Committee's conclusion that an inquiry into these matters would be valuable, is it now proposed that the 1986 census include questions on incomes and private wealth ownership? The Treasurer has provided the following supplementary information in answer to the honourable senator's question: Decisions on the content of the 1986 Census of Population and Housing will not be made until the Government considers the final recommendations of the Statistician later this year. However, in his recently issued document ' Preliminary ABS Views on the Content of the 1986 Census' (Catalogue No. 2171.0) the Statistician is proposing to recommend that a question on income similar to that used in the 1981 Census be included on the 1986 form. With regard to sources of income, the Statistician is not proposing that such a question should be included. Extensive field testing of census questions designed to obtain information on sources of income has indicated that there are major deficiencies in data collected in this way. The only question the Statistician is likely to recommend for inclusion is one relating to whether government pensions or benefits of particular kinds are received. As indicated by Senator Walsh on 28 February 1984 (Hansard, page 12), the current recommendation of the Statistician does not include the asking of a question on wealth or total assets. The gathering of reliable data on personal wealth is regarded generally as a very difficult exercise; not one for which the five yearly census of population and housing is a suitable vehicle.