Monday, 2 April 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Australian Federal Police To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia members of the Australian Federal Police shows: We are greatly concerned at the Government's proposed removal of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police and the Government's proposed establishment of a Guarding Service using the effected members of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police. We are concerned that national security currently being enjoyed by various Federal Government departments, some subject to the Defence Alliance Agreement, are not jeopardised by the disbandonment of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police by being placed into the hands of a proposed civilian and undisciplined organisation. We are concerned at the huge expenditure of the taxpayers' money that would be involved by the creation of a new administrative organisation when we currently have satisfactory administration of all Australian Federal Police activities under one management and secondly in considering the taxpayers' money unnecessarily expended in logistical areas, eg the creation of an entirely new nationwide radio network, purchasing of stores, uniforms and ancillary equipment , motor vehicles and suitable premises to house the administrative body of the proposed guarding service and many other items too numerous to mention. We are concerned that this could be the first step in the complete fragmentation of the Australian Federal Police considering your mandates determination to implement self-government for the Australian Capital Territory and moves afoot to establish an independent Australian Capital Territory law enforcement agency. We are concerned that the interest of all members of the Protective Service Component of the Australian Federal Police and their families could be jeopardised by such a move and that members may well be discriminated against or disadvantaged as has happened following the amalgamation of the former Commonwealth Police and Australian Capital Territory Police. We request that to protect the interests of the members of the Protective Service Component as opposed to forming a new guarding service that the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 be amended by the deletion of Sections 6 (d), 7 (2) and 10 from the Act. We request the retention of a Protective Service Branch of the Australian Federal Police for training members desirous of obtaining a transfer to the General Policing Component of the Australian Federal Police and as an auxillary, trained and disciplined force of men capable of being used to meet emergency situations such as Cyclone Tracy, security for royal visits and visiting VIPs ( CHOGM Conference) and the like and for the 1985 World Athletics Games to be held in the Australian Capital Territory. We request that a complete review of all functions of the Australian Federal Police be carried out to establish the areas of responsibility of the operational units of the Australian Federal Police and the most effective means of obtaining these objectives. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate stop the proposed formation of a new guarding service, that national security at various Government departments be retained, that the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 be amended by the deletions of Sections 6 (d), 7 (2) and 10, that taxpayers money is not squandered and that a complete review be carried out of all functions of the Australian Federal Police to establish the most effective means of achieving its objectives. by Senator Ryan (from 113 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to: Undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school 'community' provide an environment condusive to the development, including moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled; should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners recognise that early childhood education is fundamentally important to the intellectual, emotional, social and physical development of children and that major reductions in kindergarten and preschool funding since 1976 have seriously jeopardised the future of community based early childhood education. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: (i) Legislate to provide triennial Commonwealth funding for community based kindergartens and preschools. (ii) Ensure that such funding is sufficient to cover: (a) 100 per cent of the salaries and wages of all approved employed kindergarten and preschool staff and advisors; (b) long service leave and sick leave payments of such staff and advisors; (c) extended services which are operated because of the special needs in a particular area; (d) maintenance and renewal of buildings and equipment; And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 6,243 citizens). Petitions received. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, two sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance 1984, as contained in the Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 7 of 1984 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for contemptously betraying the trust of the Australian people by dishonouring more than 20 election promises in its first year of office, including major promises to: (a) immediately reduce income tax for six million Australians; (b) reduce petrol prices; (c) retain the health insurance rebate and home loan rebate; (d) not to increase taxation on superannuation payments, and (e) not to interfere with pensions. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) condemns the Government for its failure to release the interim report of the Australian Capital Territory Self-Government Task Force; (b) notes the need for open government to allow the people to understand the full implications of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory; (c) calls on the Government to cease planning for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory until such time as the people of the Australian Capital Territory have all the facts before them; and (d) calls on the Government to provide a financial impact statement on all the implications of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory before implementing any moves towards self-government. 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 incorporate the list in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Reorganised Portfolio Responsibilities in Aboriginal Affairs-Text of a Statement made in the House of Representatives on 29 March by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. 2. Australian War Memorial and the Museum of Australia Annual Report for 1982- 83-Statement of reasons under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as amended, for the delay in tabling the report. 3. Review of Australia's Peace Time Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements-Report-together with text of a statement made in the House of Representatives on 30 March 1984 by the Special Minister of State. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the Minister seen or read the transcript of the Four Corners program on uranium which was televised last weekend? Does he regard it as a fair and objective treatment of this important subject? If not, why not? Does he believe that his own views were adequately and fairly presented? If not, why not ? Senator WALSH —One could give a lengthy answer to the question. I do not intend to give a very lengthy answer to the question, but I will mention two or three things. The main response is that, in my view, it was far from an objective presentation. Reference was made to Oak Ridge in Tennessee. Whilst it is correct that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors do not inspect the plant, a fence or a 'black box' I think is the term that some people use, is placed around the plant by the International Atomic Energy Agency which conducts quantum checks on the amount of material moving in or out of the plant. That material must be satisfactorily accounted for. If it cannot be satisfactorily accounted for the matter is reported. The Four Corners program omitted about 90 per cent of what I had said. Whilst some editing is always to be expected in these cases, one important statement I made was not telecast. That was that, although it is technically feasible to produce weapons grade plutonium from a power reactor, there is no known instance of that having been done, at least in the non-communist world. It is possible to operate a power reactor in a way which makes it very much easier to produce weapons grade plutonium. The International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards are devised in a way which ensures the prompt discovery of a power reactor being operated in that way. Essentially the technical background is that the production of weapons grade plutonium requires very quick irradiation of the fuel rod. In most power plants the fuel rods are left in the reactor for a period of approximately 12 months, by which time there is a heavy contamination of non-fissile plutonium isotopes. However, if the rods are very quickly irradiated the plutonium produced is much less contaminated by the non-fissile isotopes. The International Atomic Energy Agency's monitoring procedures of power plants are designed in such a way that the unusual or improper operation of a reactor in that way, that is, by changing fuel rods more frequently than is required for power generation purposes, would be detected before the intensively and short term irradiated rods could be reprocessed into potential explosive material. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has said, and I understand why he said it, that he could have given a very lengthy answer. I wonder whether in the near future he would look at the transcript of the Four Corners program, since it dealt with an important subject, and consider preparing a written statement that could be presented to the Senate for incorporation in Hansard so that the subject matter could be developed further. Senator WALSH —On reflection, the original question asked whether I had read the transcript. The answer is no, I have not. I saw the Four Corners program. I shall certainly consider the suggestion that Senator Sir John Carrick has put forward. Senator McINTOSH —Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the urgent need for manufacturing industry in Australia to invest in modern machinery if it is to remain competitive and efficient? In light of the Minister 's call for manufacturing industry to update and modernise, what steps has the Government taken to facilitate the introduction of modern technology in manufacturing industry? Senator BUTTON —I am very surprised that Senator McIntosh should ask that question because it is a matter in respect of which I issued a Press statement only yesterday. I am pleased that Senator McIntosh's mind is thinking along lines similar to my own. A number of public comments have been made about the state of machine tools in Australian manufacturing industry, but such comments have not always been accurate. It is fair to say that the manufacturing tool equipment industry in Australia is very much older on the whole than that of many of the countries with which we seek to compete. For a year I have been trying to draw attention to this problem and to the need to upgrade the technological capacity of Australian industry, particularly in the area of processing. When talking about industry generally it is most important that we encourage the incorporation of modern technology into existing industries at the same time as some of us talk about the possibility of creating new industries in this country. Of course, one of the key areas is the question of computer assisted manufacturing and computer assisted design in Australian industry. As I said earlier, I announced yesterday the establishment of an expert committee to advise on the desirability of a manufacturing advisory service on CAD-CAM flexible manufacturing systems and robotics. I make the point that flexible manufacturing systems and modern technology can help substantially to overcome some of the disabilities which Australian industry has faced in the past because of low volume runs and short production runs in what is a relatively small market. Much lower tooling costs and so on are associated with flexible manufacturing systems. I regard all these initiatives as important if Australian industry is to become more competitive. The expert committee which has been established will advise on how a manufacturing network of the kind I referred to could be structured in Australia . That committee will be chaired by Mr Kevin Cashman of Sunbeam Corporation Ltd and will have on it various other industrialists and what can best be described in shorthand terms as technologists. I believe that they will be able to produce a sensible and co-ordinated approach to the introduction of technology as appropriate. I use the expression 'as appropriate' because at a time when manufacturers are being bombarded with a variety of new technologies it is very important that they embrace appropriate technologies and not technologies for their own sake. I confidently believe that the work of this committee will help in those tasks. I should also say that my Department is engaged on a joint exercise with the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia to try to collect accurate and up-to-date statistics on the machine tool population of Australia. Many of the figures cited, to which I referred earlier, in relation to the age of machine tools are now somewhat out of date. With the reports of those two initiatives, together with the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on machine tools and robots, the Government will be in a good position to push ahead with this important aspect of industry modernisation in Australia which I regard as absolutely crucial if manufacturing industry is to embrace the chance which it has now, a chance which I have sometimes described as the last chance. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy in his own capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is it true as reported in today's Australian Financial Review that the Minister has asked his Department for information on the trade implications of a ban on the supply of uranium to France while that country continues nuclear tests in the Pacific? Does the Minister agree that Government disruption of otherwise legally binding contracts for the supply of uranium would have an adverse impact , and indeed could have an extremely adverse impact, on Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier of raw materials? Is he, as reported, reconsidering the ban on the supply to France under present conditions which is contained in the Government's draft policy proposals because of those adverse effects on Australian export industries? Senator WALSH —I frequently ask my Department for advice, both factual information and departmental opinions, about a wide variety of matters. There is nothing unusual in that. I will continue to do so. The second part of the question related to the intervention by a government to prevent the delivery of any material for which delivery has been contracted. It certainly could be argued that that would adversely affect the reputation of countries as suppliers of materials. But I might add that it would not be without precedent. The action of the previous Government, for example, in terminating sand mining on Fraser Island had precisely the same consequences. Senator HEARN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of criticisms which have been made by Opposition representatives from Tasmania of the inquiry into the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme being conducted by the Inter-State Commission, namely, that by the honourable member for Wilmot, who alleges that the Federal Government simply wants to scrap the scheme? Can the Minister provide an assurance of the Government's bona fides on this matter? Senator GIETZELT —Tasmanian freight problems have been the subject of debate and concern in this Parliament for as long as I can remember and clearly we cannot expect them to be solved in the first year of the Hawke Labor Government. I am aware of the hypocritical, supercritical and somewhat antagonistic remarks that have been made by Opposition members from Tasmania about the referral of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme to the Interstate Commission. It has been suggested that that has been done for some ulterior purpose, whereas the motivation of the Minister for Transport in this matter is to assist Tasmanians. Clearly, of course, there is a major problem of transport costs involving Tasmania. Tasmania does have a transport disability in relation to the mainland which we all accept. That is the reason, of course, that we have the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. However, the problems that have arisen since the operation of the scheme clearly need to be examined by the Inter-State Commission. The Commission is now headed by the honourable Mr Justice Everett, who of course is a Tasmanian. He would be well aware of what freight problems mean to the citizens of Tasmania. I can give an assurance to Senator Hearn that, having this matter reviewed by the Inter-State Commission, the Government is hopeful that a solution or at least a part solution to the freight problem in that State will be found. We have a situation in which there is overcompensation and under-compensation. There needs to be more equalisation. Any suggestion by Opposition members of criticism of the Government's intent in this matter will do very little to assist the Government and the citizens of Tasmania. We require the co-operation of all concerned-the business sector and the consumer movement. Any scaremongering or imputing of improper motives to the InterState Commission will do a grave disservice to the citizens of Tasmania. It is about time Opposition members adopted a constructive approach and stopped their destructive criticism. Senator JACK EVANS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. What assurances can the Government give that the rationalisation of the civil coastal surveillance of the north, north-west and north-east coasts of Australia will prevent the importation of drugs, breaches of quarantine regulations and illegal immigration? Will the Government compensate the two civil aviation companies which geared up to fulfil this role for the Government by purchasing Nomad aircraft and other equipment only to be pushed aside after a brief contract period, or will it consider purchasing these specially equipped aircraft for future surveillance activities? Senator GIETZELT —I think I indicated in reply to a question late last year that the Government has under consideration some of the suggestions made by Senator Jack Evans about better coastal surveillance, particularly in the areas to which he referred, the north-east and north-west parts of Australia, in respect of matters such as illegal immigrants, drug running and other illegal activities. The Minister for Aviation has this matter under consideration. I assure the honourable senator that the Government will shortly examine how best it can handle difficulties which obviously have been with us for many years. The Minister himself indicated privately to me that he has the matter under active consideration. I shall certainly draw the Minister's attention to the specific matters raised by Senator Jack Evans for perhaps a better update on how far the Minister has progressed in his discussions with Cabinet. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When can I expect a full response to questions placed on notice on 6 September 1983 concerning corruption in the higher echelons of the Department of Foreign Affairs? Is the Minister aware of any reasons why a response has taken such an inordinate length of time? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek as early a response from him as he feels inclined to make. Senator ARCHER —Does the Minister for Resources and Energy agree that the uranium policy adopted by the Victorian conference of the Australian Labor Party yesterday is, in the words of Mrs Joan Coxsedge, 'the strongest, more coherent anti-uranium policy that has ever been presented to any Labor Party conference'? Does the Minister believe that the policy adopted at the conference in Perth yesterday, which he attended, is in line with or opposed to current Government policy? Is it true that, as reported on the AM program, he is not happy with the decision but that it is not significant? Senator WALSH —I do not know what motions were carried at the Victorian conference. Coincidentally, about 10 seconds before this question was asked of me, I was handed a list of the items that were dealt with at that conference. I make no comment on it because I would necessarily be making a comment without knowledge of the facts. I will comment on the Perth conference. The first question asked by Senator Archer was whether the motions carried at that conference were a repudiation of Government policy. The answer to that question is no, in that the motions which were carried and on which clarification was sought following the taking of the last vote, are virtually identical to the position adopted by the Government. In my opinion, however-this is what prompted my comment to which Senator Archer referred-the package of motions carried in Western Australia contains very similar elements of the inconsistency or, some would argue, even contradictoriness which is present in the present Federal platform of the Labor Party. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question to allow Senator Walsh an opportunity to make this matter clear. The question I asked was whether the Minister believed that the policy adopted at the conference in Perth was in line with Government policy. The Minister said the answer is no. Is that what he meant? Secondly, the Minister said he had not read the Victorian advice. Will he please report to the Senate when he has read it? The PRESIDENT —The first part of the question is a supplementary question. Senator WALSH —The answer to the very last question is no. The answer to the earlier part of the question, in order to clear any confusion in the answer which I gave, without getting the positives and negatives confused, is that the essential part of the resolutions carried at the conference in Western Australia yesterday is compatible with the policy adopted by the Caucus and the Government last year. The most important component of it is that it recognises that the development of the Roxby Downs mine will not be inhibited, although there can be no guarantee that the Roxby Downs project will proceed. Commercial decisions are involved. Primarily it is a commercial decision to be taken by the joint venturers on which they are due to report by the end of this year. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to the calls by the Human Rights Commission, reported at the weekend, for legislation to outlaw the dissemination of race hatred propaganda. I ask: Will the Attorney-General indicate what steps the Government has taken or proposes to take to deal with this growing problem? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am aware of the public statements by the Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, and the Deputy Chairman, Peter Bailey, over the weekend. I want to make it clear that I welcome the active role that is being taken by the Commission to publicise important issues in the human rights field and to bring forward constructive suggestions for legislative reform. The views of the Commission have already been forwarded to me and made available generally in the report it made late last year on the problem of race hatred propaganda, which report contained proposals for amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act to cover incitement to race hatred and racial defamation. Those proposals are presently under consideration by the Government, as I have indicated previously in this place, in the context of the review of human rights legislation generally, and the Racial Discrimination Act in particular, presently being conducted by a departmental task force with the benefit of public submissions following advertisements seeking such submissions late last year. I do make the point that recent events, in particular the spate of offensive stickers and pamphlets directed at Asian immigrants, have once again highlighted the propensity of some members of our community to engage in racist behaviour specifically designed to provoke ill will or worse against ethnic minorities. I also take this occasion to express my concern at what seems to me to be something of a deterioration in standards so far as less extreme racial slurs are concerned. In that respect I refer particularly to an article in a leading Melbourne paper over the weekend which purported to be an interview with Gary MacDonald, of Norman Gunston fame, describing the way in which he had moved to take the role as Fagan in the Oliver Twist theatre production, the heading for which, as I recall it, was something along the lines of: 'From Little Aussie Bleeder to Crafty Jew'. It seems to me that that kind of stereotyping, which was repeated in the text of the article, but most conspicuously in the headline, is wholly offensive to particular minority groups within our community. Although I certainly would not want to suggest that this is the kind of thing that is in any way appropriate to penal sanctions, it is, I believe, the kind of thing that quite rightly attracts concern by the Commission. I make the point finally, as I have on previous occasions, that this is not an easy one to resolve because of the fundamental tension here between the principle of free speech and expression on the one hand, and on the other the right of all individuals to live in a harmonious society free of prejudice and persecution. I am not sure how the balance can best be struck; it may be by some extended civil remedy for group defamation, but this is the kind of thing to which the Government is giving close consideration. I hope to be in a position to report on this later in the year. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is also to the Attorney-General, follows the answer he has just given. I express my agreement with him that we should discourage racial hatred and manifestations of it, but I ask him to assure the Senate that in any consideration the Government gives this matter there will be no attempt to reduce the freedom of people such as Professor Blainey to raise what are significant questions of public policy and issues such as our immigration policy, and that very careful attention will be given to the need to ensure freedom of speech on these important matters. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am happy to give the honourable senator such an assurance . I remind him that in saying that I am saying no more than I have consistently said in every public contribution I have made to this debate. I am aware of the importance of there being able to be contributions, rational or irrational, to public debate on sensitive topics. One can get only to first base in justifying legislative sanctions of any kind against such expression if they are of a peculiarly extreme kind and constitute something in the nature of incitement. Even then there are legitimate arguments as to how far it is proper for legislation to go. It may well be that it is better to place the emphasis on trying to develop education on these matters in the community and sensitivity to the issues involved by means other than legal ones. But that is a debate we still have to have, and it is not one that I am seeking in any way to pre-empt. Senator ELSTOB —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. It concerns the recent ruling of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on tobacco advertising. Can the Minister advise why the Tribunal has chosen to give a retrospective ruling on advertisements which have been running for more than a year? Is the Minister aware that, due to these rulings, the credibility of the Tribunal has been harmed somewhat? Has the Minister for Communications discussed with the Tribunal the possible ramifications the rulings present for broadcasting? Senator BUTTON —Insofar as Senator Elstob's question asks about retrospectivity in the Broadcasting Tribunal's decision, I would apprehend that it is the Broadcasting Tribunal's function to administer the law and if, as it does do in perusing program content and so on over a period, it finds breaches of the law, it seems to me quite in order for the Tribunal so to declare. The fact that in that sense the ruling has a retrospective application does not seem to me to be in any way objectionable. The law is there and if television licensees do not comply with the law it is the Tribunal's function to point that out and take appropriate action. I am also asked whether the credibility of the Tribunal has been damaged by its ruling. In view of the part of the answer I have already given, I would say no. I am further asked by Senator Elstob whether the Minister has discussed with the Tribunal the possible ramifications for broadcasting that the ruling presents. I do not know, but I would assume that the Minister has not discussed the ruling of the Broadcasting Tribunal with that body. The Broadcasting Tribunal is an independent statutory authority and I would not regard it as the business of the Minister for Communications to canvass with it its rulings on matters which are peculiarly within the province of that statutory authority. Finally, let me say in relation to this whole matter that the Minister for Communications made a statement, which was released on 22 March this year. I have not the details of the statement here, but if Senator Elstob wishes I can obtain a copy of it for him so that he can see in detail the approach adopted by the Minister for Communications. Senator TOWNLEY —I ask a question of the Minister for Resources and Energy. It arises from an article in the Australian today headed: 'ALP senator slams government attitude to uranium'. Does the Minister agree with his Western Australian colleague Senator Coleman who is reported to have said in her submission to the Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry into Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle that no confidence can be placed in the promises and commitments of political leaders regarding uranium? Senator WALSH —I have not seen the submission and I would not rely on that newspaper, in particular, to give an adequate account of what was contained in the submission. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Last week in response to my question on assistance available to people at Borroloola following Cyclone Kathy the Minister indicated that a communication had been sent to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory offering financial assistance. I ask the Minister: Has the Chief Minister responded to the Government's offer? It has been reported to me that several families at Borroloola are suffering because emergency food provisions are not available. Will the Minister investigate these claims and take whatever action is necessary to assist these families? Senator BUTTON —I recall Senator Robertson's question of last week. In my answer to that question I indicated that the Prime Minister had telexed the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory offering any assistance possible under the Natural Disasters Organisation relief scheme and that the Royal Australian Air Force had contributed a Caribou aircraft which had taken supplies to the area. The Prime Minister's offer to the Northern Territory Chief Minister has received no response at this stage. One does not seek to make any point about that. It may well be that a response requires a careful assessment of the damage done and so on and it may be a week or so before a response is forthcoming. The position is that, as at today, there has been no response from the Northern Territory Government. Senator Robertson in his question referred to reports of alleged suffering by several families as a result of a lack of emergency supplies, particularly food. The question of emergency food relief is a matter for the Northern Territory Government. Nonetheless, I do not regard that as a satisfactory answer. Senator Robertson, in a sense, has perceived the issue by asking whether I will make inquiries to see whether that is true and whether the Commonwealth can make any contribution in respect of that problem. I will make those inquiries and will advise Senator Robertson as soon as there is a response from the Northern Territory Government to the Commonwealth offer. I will make inquiries, more particularly, regarding alleged suffering by families and provide him with a response as quickly as possible. Senator WALTERS —I ask the Attorney-General whether he believes he should add to his answer to my question of last Friday when he said that he had no recollection of having seen a legal opinion which casts doubts on the legality of the Government's categorisation of hospitals under Medicare. I again ask whether before last Friday he saw a view that the categorisation action could not be enforced by law. If not, has he since become aware that the action was illegal? Is it not a fact that the Minister for Health rendered categorisation invalid by failing to comply with the provisions of his own Act? Senator GARETH EVANS —I confirm my recollection as stated here last Friday that I have not seen any such opinion. The matter is in the process of being checked. I was advised this morning that I certainly had not seen any paper on this matter. I understand that an opinion was sought and obtained, I think, by the Department of Health from a private legal counsel. That seems to be the matter to which Senator Walters is referring. I have not had any departmental briefing on it. As such I am not in a position to answer Senator Walters further. I have asked that a letter be prepared for my signature advising her of such information as I am in a position to give her. I will send that in due course. Senator CROWLEY —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen the article in today's Age where the Federal President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Lindsay Thompson, is quoted as saying that he expected the doctors who went on strike later this week would 'presume every case is an emergency until proven otherwise'? He further admitted that doctors would never mount an effective strike 'if by that you mean one that would close down a public hospital. I guess that is what separates us from the builders labourers'. Does the Minister agree that Dr Thompson's comments indicate a clear lack of commitment to the proposed strike and a cynical use of strike talk to try to intimidate this Government, and that his comments about the Builders Labourers Federation show that he does not understand what constitutes proper industrial action? Senator GRIMES —I did briefly note the statement by Dr Thompson this morning, I think in the Age or on the radio. I did not, however, note the detail he mentioned. I suppose it is possible that the doctors' strike could close public hospitals and stop patients getting treated in those hospitals, but I imagine that the vast majority of doctors in this country would in fact not tolerate that situation and that we would not have a strike like that. I dare say there is a fair bit of cynicism in Dr Thompson's approach, because he is clearly trying to emulate the Builders Labourers Federation and other trade unions without their experience or knowledge. However, I did not note the detailed comments about the Builders Labourers Federation. It is my understanding that Dr Blewett met with Dr Thompson and other representatives of the AMA this morning. I hope that out of that there will be some resolution to this dispute. Rather than say anything more and stir the thing up, I will finish there. Senator REID —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Is the Minister for Territories and Local Government a tenant of a government flat in the Australian Capital Territory? If so, when did he become a tenant and what rent does he currently pay? What is the current average cost of weekly rental for a non-government flat in Canberra? Senator GIETZELT —I think that clearly requires an answer from the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I will seek an early response. Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I refer the Minister to the distortions of historical fact and current reality contained in the propaganda film The Human Face of Russia, prepared and produced at taxpayers' expense by Film Australia and recently screened by the 10 Network in Melbourne and Sydney. Firstly, is the Minister aware that this Australian production contains monstrous distortions of the true position by confusing Ukrainian and Russian cultures, and indeed cities and places; giving false information about collectivisation and the Moscow-induced famine under which at least seven million Ukrainians died of starvation in the enforcement of collectivisation; and making false allegations about equality of jobs and educational opportunities while ignoring the victimisation of dissidents and religious and minority groups in these areas? Secondly, will the Minister take action to ensure that this propaganda exercise is not distributed abroad to the shame and disgrace of Australian citizens? Will the Minister seek to ensure that Australian human rights groups and Ukrainian national groups have equal opportunity to reply to this pro-Soviet propaganda? Is the Minister aware that the film is an amalgam of several films produced in 1979 which were then attacked on similar grounds? Senator RYAN —I am not aware of the film to which Senator Missen referred, so I cannot comment on the claims he made about distortions in the subject matter presented in it. I think the best thing I can do is refer Senator Missen's question to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and ask him to respond directly to Senator Missen's queries about this film. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister seen reports that certain citizens in Australia are advocating that employers can choose to opt out of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act? Are these the same individuals who sabotaged the central wage fixation system in 1981? Senator BUTTON —I have seen some reports about this matter, but they were not discursive or necessarily well informed. I cannot say whether the people who are now advocating that companies be allowed to opt out of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are the same people who brought the country almost to its knees with the confusion of their wages policy in 1981. After all, we in the Government accept that governments are largely responsible for administration of systems and particularly for a coherent wages policy being presented to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and maintained and enforced by governments. In that context, I cannot label any particular individuals as the question invites me to. I suppose the current advocates of the opting out process are to be found in the present Opposition. I believe the principal advocate of that view is the discredited former Treasurer, Mr John Howard. On the other side of the picture the forces are led by the credible former Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Ian Macphee. That is a battle which they have to resolve. If one identifies, as Senator Ray does, the forces of darkness and the festival of light in the Liberal Party, there is no doubt, if I were to exert any influence in that matter, on which side I would fall, but that might be the kiss of death for the festival of light. So the same people are involved. All one can record with horror is that because of wage increases in excess of 20 per cent in 1981- 82 the whole system of wage fixation was brought into discredit and, as a result , serious economic consequences followed for this country from which it was still recovering when this Government was elected on 5 March 1983. Senator MARTIN —Does the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women agree with the proposition that the social and economic health of the family, as the basic unit of our society, is essential to the social and economic health of our nation? Does she agree that concern has been expressed throughout the Western world in recent times as to the future of the family by people whose political and social views cover a broad spectrum, from the so- called Moral Majority to feminists such as Germaine Greer and Betty Friedan? Is it a fact that the statistics available on the family in Australia are highly deficient and that this denies to government and interested groups and individuals the information necessary for constructive debate and decisions on matters which affect the family? Does the Minister agree that information sought through the five-yearly census forms compounds this deficiency? For example, where a spouse is temporarily absent from home on census night the family is coded as a one-parent family or, if there are no children, the spouse at home is coded as a person living alone, and so on. In view of the importance of family related information to policies on women, will the Minister undertake to urge the Prime Minister and the Government to make such additions and modifications to the 1986 census as are necessary to get accurate information on the Australian family? Senator RYAN —I think it is quite clear, after a year in office, that our Government places a very high priority indeed on supporting the family in all its forms, be it the two-parent family, the single parent family or an extended family, where wage earners are caring for aged relatives. We do not assume that every family has the same composition or the same shape. We certainly regard the family unit as of basic social and economic importance, as Senator Martin suggested in her question. Our Government has undertaken a number of measures, particularly in the area of the responsibility of my colleague Senator Grimes, to assist families to provide the social and economic support necessary for their health. No doubt more measures of this kind will be implemented. Senator Chaney —For the health of what? Senator RYAN —Senator Chaney seems to be in some doubt. I am sure that Senator Grimes can list the various improvements we have made, for example for the children of low income families, in the allowance for low income families and in the dependants allowances under the various social security benefits, all of which were increased because of our recognition of the importance of giving adequate income support assistance to low income families. I totally agree with the suggestion in Senator Martin's question that data regarding the economic and other circumstances of families is defective and insufficient. It is true that now we do not have accurate information covering all the aspects that affect a family's wellbeing, and we are certainly determined to improve this situation. One of the very high priorities in the restructured and strengthened Office of the Status of Women is a research program which will explore the kinds of areas which Senator Martin's question covers, as well as many others. For example, the Office of the Status of Women has just prepared a very thorough paper for the benefit of giving advice to the Government on the taxation system and the effect of current taxation measures on women, including those who are responsible for families. That is just one example of the kind of work that the Office is undertaking. I expect that there will be many other ways in which the research program of the Office will enable the Government to improve its understanding of and policies on the economic and social situation of families. I will certainly give consideration, and ask the Prime Minister to give consideration, to those specific matters raised in Senator Martin's question which relate to the way in which census data on families is collected. If it is possible to improve the accuracy and scope of data obtained from the census by changing the way in which questions are asked, I am sure that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to that suggestion. If the Government is to have policies that are effective in assisting families, whatever their composition, I agree that it needs to have available better data. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, concerns the community employment program. Can the Minister say whether, as in South Australia, other States have a community employment development officer employed by councils of social service specifically to assist community groups with formulating CEP projects and submissions for funding? Does the Government intend to review the CEP guidelines in view of the fact that eligibility provisions have prevented many worthwhile projects sponsored by community groups getting off the ground? Senator BUTTON —Senator Elstob was kind enough to mention to me a day or two ago that he intended to ask this question. I have obtained an answer to the honourable senator's question from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Community employment program grants have been approved in the following States or Territories for the specific purpose of stimulating and developing CEP proposals in the community. Victoria has two development officers sponsored by the Victorian Council of Social Service. Queensland has two development officers and one administrative assistant jointly sponsored by the Queensland Council of Social Service and Basic Research Action Development. Tasmania has two development officers sponsored by the Tasmanian Council of Social Service. The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory each have one development officer sponsored respectively by the Council of Social Service and by Jobless Action. I am advised that my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has had consultations with all States and Territories and is undertaking a review of CEP in the light of experience with the program to date. A number of program developments were discussed at the recent conference of labour Ministers. It is intended also that in the next few months further consultations will take place with the States and the Territories and non- government organisations to enable any modification to CEP to be introduced in the next financial year. In relation to the requirement that sponsors contribute 30 per cent of total project costs, the Minister has advised that, in view of widespread concern expressed by local government community groups, he is initiating a separate review of this requirement. That matter will be considered by the Government in the near future. At that stage no doubt I will be able to provide Senator Elstob with a further answer. Senator MACKLIN —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, concerns the Government's complete and unequivocal commitment to upholding the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why does the Government want to monitor nuclear weapons development in other countries to ensure our technological lead time to produce nuclear weapons is matched to developments in such countries, when the Government says that it does not ever want to produce nuclear weapons and that it never can because of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Senator GARETH EVANS —The status of the reports in last week's National Times, from which Senator Macklin draws that question, has been amply described in a statement by me in this place last Friday. There is nothing more I can usefully add to it. As to the level of commitment of this Government to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, again I can use very little language today that would be more unequivocal than the language I used on behalf of the Government last Friday. I can supplement it in at least a couple of respects just to get the record even clearer perhaps than it already is. On 22 November last year Cabinet made the following decisions on arms control and disarmament which have in fact been announced but which I draw again to the honourable senator's attention. There were eight interrelated decisions. They were: (i) to promote measures to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race; (ii) to uphold the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty; (iii) to promote a comprehensive and verifiable ban on nuclear testing; (iv) to develop the concept of a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific; (v) to support the achievement of an agreement to ban chemical weapons; (vi) to support the process of negotiation and the achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control agreements; (vii) to take an active role in pursuing arms control and disarmament measures wherever possible; that includes, of course, the establishment of the Ambassador for Disarmament- (viii) and to affirm Australia's readiness to join a consensus to hold an international conference on the Indian Ocean zone of peace question. I also mention for the honourable senator's benefit that the strategic basis document which was considered by Cabinet last year, and I make no comment as to whether Mr Toohey's version of it was in any way accurate, contained the following key sentence on the nuclear question: Australia's interests continue to be served by the adherence to, and support for wider acceptance of, the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and for strengthening nuclear safeguards measures generally. That fundamentally important sentence does not appear in the purported excerpts from the document published by the National Times last week. Any attempt to draw nourishment from the alleged language of the document in the form in which that language is articulated by the National Times ought to take considerations like that very much into account. I repeat what I have said before. Australia is a party to the non-proliferation treaty. It regards that as a permanent and binding obligation and it will honour that obligation in every conceivable way open to it. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I ask that the paper from which the Minister quoted be tabled. The PRESIDENT —The Leader of the Opposition has asked that the paper from which the Minister quoted be tabled. Senator GARETH EVANS —By all means. Senator ZAKHAROV —Can the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women inform the Senate whether employees of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation will be covered by provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act? If so, what steps are being taken to ensure that the great imbalance of the sexes at middle and senior levels of employment at the bank is redressed as soon as possible? Senator RYAN —Yes, I can confirm that employees of the Commonwealth Bank will be covered by the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. That will mean that the bank, like any other employer covered by the Act, will have to cease any discriminatory practices in recruitment, promotion, training and so forth. Of course, the second part of Senator Zakharov's question, that of changing the structure with regard to women and men throughout that organisation, will be addressed more substantially after the release and discussion of affirmative action proposals which are now imminent. The Sex Discrimination Act will certainly cover employees of the Commonwealth Bank. Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the warning contained in the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Threats to Australia's Security': The implications of the continuing unsettled security and political situation in West Irian cannot be ignored within the context of examining potential sources of conflict in which Australia might become involved. I refer also to that part of last week's leaked defence document which stated: Should a substantial incursion occur, the PNG Defence Force would have a very limited ability to respond. PNG could be expected to request consultation with Australia under the 1977 Joint Statement on Defence matters, leading to requests for military assistance and raising difficult issues for Australia. Bearing in mind the above, I ask the Minister: What has been Australia's reaction to the alleged incursion of Indonesian military jets into Papua New Guinea air space last week, described by the Papua New Guinea Government as a flagrant violation of its territorial sovereignty and a serious breach of international law? Also, what is the Government doing, if anything, to help defuse the current border tension? Senator GARETH EVANS —I can confirm reports made to the effect that the Papua New Guinea Government has delivered a protest note to the Indonesian Ambassador in Port Moresby over the intrusion into Papua New Guinea of what that Government believes to be Indonesian military aircraft. I note the Indonesian Embassy comment made public over the weekend that such an incursion was not in fact denied. The protest reflects the Papua New Guinea Government's disappointment over Indonesian handling of recent border developments and indicates the intention to review the position of the Indonesian Defence Attache in Port Moresby. Prime Minister Somare called for the Foreign Ministers of both countries to meet to iron out recent misunderstandings. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, is reported to have welcomed that proposal for a meeting and has indicated that it could take place on his return from his current visit to Moscow. The Australian Government's role has essentially been one of a spectator of these events. We are naturally very concerned at events which take place in an area so close to Australia and which do have obvious implications for Australia. However, we have taken the view and continue to take the view that matters pertaining to the Indonesian-Papua New Guinea border are for the Indonesian and Papua New Guinea governments to resolve. We are encouraged, as a result of that approach, by the indications that I have just mentioned which are that the two governments are prepared to resolve their differences through dialogue. Naturally, we hope that that process will carry through to fruition. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, concerns the latest Indicative Planning Council report on the housing industry. I ask: Does the report confirm earlier indications that the recovery in the housing industry, particularly in my home State, South Australia, is well under way? Does the report acknowledge the role played by the Federal Government's housing policies in this recovery of the housing industry? Will the availability of resources in South Australia in any way prevent a continuation of these boom conditions in the 1984-85 financial year, or will the Minister be closely monitoring the situation to ensure that the recovery continues unabated? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Foreman says, the report of the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry confirms earlier indications that the recovery in the housing industry is well under way. The forecast housing commencements in 1983-84 are 30 per cent above the 20-year low that we had last year of 105,000 commencements, that is, there are 135,000 commencements this year. South Australia, as Senator Foreman will be pleased to know, features prominently in this recovery. The 1983-84 forecast of commencements in South Australia is 11, 500 which is, in fact, 40 per cent over 1982-83. This is the highest level of commencements in South Australia since 1976-77. The report attributes this recovery to increased availability and reduced cost of housing finance, consumer confidence in economic recovery and the continued success of the first home ownership scheme. Senator Foreman asked me about the availability of resources in South Australia to maintain this recovery. The Council states that in South Australia the labour market is still in an oversupply situation and, in view of the forecast commencements, no major problems can be foreseen for the period under review. Reserve stocks of land have gradually been reduced but are currently considered adequate. However, the Council considers that increased subdivision activity is desirable. It does not consider that there are any constraints on material supplies. However, I can assure honourable senators that the Government is concerned to ensure that recovery is not affected by resource constraints. The Minister for Housing and Construction has informed me that he has instructed his Department to monitor the situation not only in South Australia but also nationally. He has asked the Council to prepare a report on the industry capacity. He has also arranged a meeting in late April with representatives of State and local governments, industry groups, financial institutions, the trade union movement and housing consumers to discuss housing policy issues prior to the Budget and the Premiers Conference. I can assure the chamber that the Government's housing policies for 1984-85 will be developed in close consultation with all relevant groups and all sections of the industry. Senator MacGIBBON —Did the Minister representing the Prime Minister see today's article in the news analysis section of the Australian Financial Review on Australian beef sales to Japan, the latest in a long line of reports of losses of overseas market shares for Australian primary products since this Government came to power? I refer to the following paragraph in that article: However, the debate in Tokyo last week left no doubt at all that Australia has completely dropped out of the Japan-US political beef slugging match. Why was the Cabinet decision taken not to fight for Australia's meat exports, or are all our diplomatic energies spent in cosying up to Vietnam? Senator BUTTON —I did not see the report referred to by Senator MacGibbon. There was no Cabinet decision, in Senator MacGibbon's terms, not to pursue beef sales to Japan. No time is being spent by the Cabinet in, as he put it, cosying up to Vietnam. The question is, in a sense, offensively couched in that it is based on inaccuracies in all the matters to which I have referred and on the other matter of continuing declining sales of primary produce overseas since this Government came to power. Senator BUTTON —On Friday of last week Senator Rae directed a question to me relating to the topic of clearance of so-called noil silk fabrics in Melbourne by Customs. Senator Rae's question related to delays in clearances by Customs because of the necessity of scientific tests of certain material. I am informed that the answer is as follows: Fabrics containing a predominance of wool and containing more than 10 per cent noil silk attract a duty of 2 per cent. There has been a marked increase in imports of fabric from Italy which has been declared to fall within the definition necessary to achieve a rate of duty of 2 per cent. As a result of investigations of a number of importers and of analysis of various samples, a widespread system of misdescription of goods has been uncovered in connection with these fabric imports. Fabric described as containing 60 per cent wool has been found to have a wool content as low as 19 per cent. Instead of containing more than 10 per cent silk, fabric has been found to contain only one per cent of silk. Fabric which does not meet the definition of achieving 2 per cent duty attracts at least 45 per cent duty. A significant quantity of fabric has already been seized and action is being take to seize more. Fabric which is regarded as falling within the risk category has been closely monitored to ensure that the correct duty is collected, and there are large quantities of fabric in this suspect category. Since November 1983, 50 shipments have been sampled in Melbourne and 14 have been found to be incorrectly declared, with large sums of additional duty due; and 16 have been correctly declared and released while results are awaited on several other shipments. The Melbourne Chamber of Commerce was advised by telex on 22 February that Customs would accept analysis of samples by the Australian Wool Testing Authority. This is in addition to analyses by Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in an effort to facilitate clearance by those importers who correctly declare their goods. The earlier paragraphs are of course self- explanatory in a sense, but the last paragraph refers to the point of Senator Rae's question. There are now two sources of testing and the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce was advised on 26 February of their availability. We hope that it will achieve the result of greater expedition, which was apparent in the concern expressed by Senator Rae. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I thank the Minister very much for the expedition with which he obtained that information for me arising from my speech on the adjournment debate last Friday. Senator BUTTON —On Friday Senator Peter Rae asked me a question about pre-Budget quotas. In my answer to him I made the point that they were introduced earlier than usual last year. The decision to impose pre-Budget quotas was taken on 18 May. Shortly after that date I, in my capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce, advised the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance of that decision. Prior to the decision of 18 May officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce had been in consultation with officers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and the Treasury. The introduction of pre-Budget quotas, as Senator Rae will appreciate, is rather complex. Immediately following such a decision it is necessary for departmental officers to research previous clearance history, determine the basis for quota allocation, input the information into the computer and subsequently print quota instruments. In all, some 45 officers of my Department were involved in the process. In the 24 to 48-hour period prior to the introduction of quotas on 22 June it was necessary to brief State control officers and arrange for 310 quota instruments to be delivered to the respective companies immediately after the announcement. In all over 100 officers of my Department, Australia-wide, were involved in this need-to-know process. When the Department became aware of a possible leak of information regarding quotas, consideration was given to the conduct of an investigation. However, the Department decided that in view of the number of departmental officers involved, together with officers in other departments who were aware of the decision to impose the quotas on 22 June, such an investigation would be unlikely to reveal the source of the leak if in fact there was one. The Department advised me of the normal level of clearances on 20 June or 21 June and that it did not propose to conduct an investigation, for the reasons I have previously outlined. I accepted that advice at the time. I made some slightly unfavourable comment about what had happened in a written note to the Department. It comes as a surprise to me, and I understand also to senior officers of the Department, that a particular person appears to be suspected of leaking the information. If the honourable senator knows as a 'notorious fact'-as he put it on Friday I think-that there is a person who should be under suspicion, I would be grateful if he would make the information available to me so I can give further consideration to that matter. Senator GIETZELT —During Question Time Senator Jack Evans asked me a question about coastal surveillance, particularly in the northern part of Australia. I draw his attention to a statement that was put down in the House of Representatives on Friday last perhaps to amplify the reply I gave to the question raised by him. In April last year the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Transport jointly requested the Minister for Aviation and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, to carry out a review of how our nation's surveillance needs were met. The Prime Minister indicated at that time that a report of the findings and results of that review would be made available to the Parliament. That is what was presented to the House of Representatives on Friday last. Mr Beazley's review concluded, among other things, by stating: . . . . in view of the responsibilities of the Australian Federal Police for the enforcement of Commonwealth law the co-ordinated surveillance protection organisation should be based on the Australian Federal Police. Accordingly, the Government has decided that a coastal protection unit will be established within the Australian Federal Police with responsibility for directing and co- ordinating overall coastal surveillance response and enforcement. The unit will operate within the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre and will be a joint user of that centre with the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport will continue to manage the functions of the centre and will retain responsibility for maritime safety, search and rescue and associated functions. The new arrangements will mean that the Australian Federal Police will be on hand to apprehend offenders when the crimes are detected. Under the old system, offences could only be detected and then reported. The two firms whose contracts will not be renewed after 30 April are the Northern Territory Aerial Works, in Darwin, and the Queensland company Airesearch Pty Ltd. A Western Australian based group, Skywest Airlines Pty Ltd, will be the single contractor. It already has operations in Queensland following its takeover of H. C. Sleigh Aviation Ltd . It will be extending its Queensland operations and also opening up operations in the Northern Territory. As I understand it, in future the responsibility of the Parliament for these operations will be handled by the Special Minister of State. Senator GIETZELT —During Question Time Senator Reid asked me a question for which I was not immediately able to provide the answer. I have subsequently been advised that the policy has operated for many years, having been varied from time to time, of providing members of parliament with an entitlement to public housing. Ministers have always been entitled to an allocation, and still are. The policy has been confirmed by successive governments and the present policy is unchanged from that applied by the previous Government. Several Ministers of the past, including members of the Liberal-National Party Government, have taken advantage of the policy and lived in public housing while members of parliament. No housing policy has been changed by the present Minister for Territories and Local Government in such a way as to advantage himself. The flat in question was allocated to the Minister in accordance with the policy when he was a Minister in the previous Government in 1973. He still occupies that residence, in 1984, and at all times the full set rent for the property has been paid. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I do not wish to talk about the particular administrative rearrangements the Government has proposed for Aboriginal affairs. That is a matter for the Government and it is its right to organise affairs as it thinks appropriate. I do not want to let this opportunity pass without drawing attention to a couple of notable matters contained in the announcement. The first is the fact that Mr Charles Perkins has been appointed Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. He is the first Aboriginal Australian to reach the top rank of the Commonwealth Public Service. This is a record which only Charles Perkins can hold-it can never be equalled or approached; there can be no other first person to share it with him. It is a notable achievement by Mr Perkins and I put on record my own view that this is something for which he deserves congratulations from within the Parliament. Over the years I have had a varied relationship with Charlie Perkins, starting off at Sydney University when he went there in the mid-1960s as the first Aboriginal student at that institution to take an undergraduate degree, then watching his career over the years and finally when we worked together when I was Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I think it is fair to say that we have always had a good relationship, though it was not always a tranquil one. It is also fair to say that as a Minister it was my duty on occasions to disagree forcefully with Charles and for him to disagree with me. We had some quite interesting discussions. It was also my function to protect him during some of the controversies that erupted during that time when he was trying to play the dual role of head of a statutory corporation and Aboriginal politician. He found himself in the very difficult situation of having a foot in two worlds, with responsibilities devolving upon him because of his Aboriginality and other responsibilities devolving upon him because of his role as an officer of the Public Service or as the head of a statutory corporaton. I would therefore like to say that there now falls upon Charles Perkins a very special challenge and responsibility because as a permanent head he can no longer have the freedom which he did have in the past to comment publicly on matters about which he feels passionately and on which he wishes to have his views known. I wish him well in his new job. I think it will be a new set of constraints as well as a new set of opportunities. While we congratulate him, we will watch his progress with interest. I also note that Miss Lois O'Donoghue will be taking on some new responsibilities under the re-organisation. This remarkable Australian also deserves the commendation of all Australians and all members of the Parliament. Senator Button —What position does she have? Senator PETER BAUME —She has been the Chairman of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. She will be taking on a role with the new housing organisation. I first met Lois O' Donoghue when she was acting regional director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I made a trip to Oodnadatta with a Senate committee which included former Senators Keeffe, Bonner and Davidson. It was quite a remarkable trip as we seemed to raise considerable ire in Oodnadatta. We thought we were going to be run out at one stage. At that stage Lois O'Donoughue was doing a very important job with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. She, too, was straddling two worlds in quite a remarkable way. As I remember, her mother at that stage was living in the town camp outside Oodnadatta. Lois found time to visit her family and to look after the senators as she went through. Since then she has been Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference, Chairman of Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and has served as a commissioner on the Aboriginal Development Commission. She now takes over this new task which involves the bringing together of several housing responsibilities. Her appointment to this job is one more recognition of the singular contribution which Lois O'Donoghue has made to Australia and to Aboriginal development in particular. The fact that she has been honoured both by way of traditional honours and with the Order of Australia is an example of the kind of recognition that the community would wish to give her. I take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation of what these two people have done and my hope that they will continue to contribute in the same way. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.23) —I concur fully with what my colleague Senator Peter Baume said in respect of Charles Perkins and Lois O'Donoghue. They are remarkable Australians. Irrespective of controversies which have arisen in the past they have conscientiously followed through their interests in the development of the best interests of Aboriginal communities in Australia. Both sides of this Parliament would accept these new appointments and give their personal congratulations to Charles Perkins and Lois O'Donoghue in their new responsibilities. I have had dealings with both persons over many years, first with Charles Perkins when we were undergraduate students, he at the University of Sydney and I at the University of Adelaide. We were involved with the Aboriginal scholarship scheme for university entry. In the last six years that I have been a member of the Senate it has been a pleasure to see the way that they continued to contribute on behalf not only of the Aboriginal communities in every part of Australia, but in conscientiously seeing themselves as a part of Australia as a whole, as Australian citizens. It was a pleasure for my wife and me, only last weekend, to visit briefly the Lois O'Donoghue Hostel in Port Augusta. It is a new, very attractive and efficient hostel for Aboriginal travellers in that important part of my State. It is very appropriately and boldly named the Lois O 'Donoghue Hostel. Both Charles Perkins and Lois O'Donoghue spent considerable parts of their early lives in South Australia. They knew each other as children and as teenagers in that they suffered the same dubious honour of having been taken away from their families under the old, and gladly superseded, protectionist procedures. Without any ability to disagree, they were taken from their families to homes in Adelaide where they received pastoral care, encouragement and the knowledge and learning which put them in a position to apply themselves on behalf of the Aboriginal communities of Australia today. Whatever the mixed blessings of those difficult years that were in part shared by Charles Perkins and Lois O'Donoghue, they remain two of the most outstanding leaders of the Aboriginal people. Whilst in noting these rearrangements we do not hold back from discussing, arguing about and disagreeing with Government policies that are executed, we do note the high honour accorded to those taking up these new appointments and we genuinely wish them well. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.26) —I join with my colleagues Senator Baume and Senator Teague in welcoming and congratulating Charlie Perkins and Lois O' Donoghue on their appointments. I first came to know Charlie Perkins at a later stage, in particular when I was shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the period when we were in opposition in the earlier part of the 1970s. I formed then and continue to hold a very high opinion of both his capacity and the sensitivity with which he has fulfilled the very peculiar role which he has had. As Senator Baume said, his role has been very difficult in that it involved both moving up through, and carrying out an important function in, the Australian Public Service as well as, of necessity, being involved in a degree of Aboriginal politics. That is an area of politics in which radicalism and very strong feelings have been engendered by some of the history and past experiences of the people involved. I have found Charles Perkins one of the truly great people in his ability to walk the tightrope of satisfying the demand for action on the part of people who in other countries have become revolutionaries. Along with former Senator Neville Bonner who, I think, is in the precincts of the House today, he has played an extremely important part in the reconciliation of the legitimate demand that Australian Aboriginal people obtain a more equitable place in Australian society and the Australian economy. They have been able to see that happen without the trouble which has been experienced in some other countries and without the degree of extremism which has been experienced in other countries. I believe that we owe a lot to people such as Neville Bonner, Charles Perkins, Lois O'Donoghue and others who have been able at the one time to be outspoken without being revolutionary. Rational conclusion has been able to be reached and a public awareness has been able to be created. I believe that these people have played a tremendously important part in the development of this country. The whole of Australia is indebted to them for the moderate but effective role which they have been able to play. I warmly join with my colleagues in making my comments on this particular announcement. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.29) —I think the Government's rearrangements in relation to the Aboriginal Affairs Department are generally welcomed by all. I would particularly like to congratulate the Government for the moves it has made in making more places available in the Department for Aboriginals, not only at senior level, but also throughout the Department, thus enabling them to have a greater say in what goes on. Charles Perkins is well known throughout the Aboriginal community and Australia. That is not to say-I imagine any senator here who knows that area well would agree-that he is totally accepted by all people within the Aboriginal community or that his views are in accord with those of everybody in the Aboriginal community. I think that it is a welcomed fact among the Aboriginal community in Australia, in terms of the growth of its political awareness, that there are varying shades of opinion and there is much contention on issues. I believe these political movements within the community are to be welcomed. There are varying shades of view and discussions are conducted in a vigorous and often very heated manner. In many ways that is part of the Aboriginal people having moved into the centre area in controlling their own lives and destinies. Now the Aborigines have, as the prime departmental adviser to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), a member of their own race. That is an important role but we should always bear in mind that he will tender one view-an important view but nevertheless it is one view-to the Government. The Government will receive a variety of other views, namely through the National Aboriginal Conference, that will often express an alternative position. In the contention of those various positions I believe there will be general advancement. I think that the Government should be congratulated for making a move which has not been made before. That move has been extensive throughout the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I hope there will be a continuation of that move. I believe that the Minister could well dissolve his Department of Aboriginal Affairs and turn it into a secretariat for the National Aboriginal Conference. That is probably a move that governments are not likely to take for some time, but hopefully eventually they will. If that did occur our procedures would be very similar to the procedures which currently govern the development of policy in the United States system. In time to come that development of policy will become far less contentious than it is today; many of the issues which are on the political agenda will have disappeared and it will be merely an ongoing proposition with very much less heat than there is today in the policy area of Aboriginal affairs. I believe it is appropriate that there should be this appointment to the head of a department when the Government has before the Senate and the House of Representatives a very comprehensive motion on the whole issue and indeed has made an announcement that there will be national uniform legislation in this area. I think that when those issues arrive undoubtedly there will be further contention within the wider community as Australians discuss an issue that has been with us for a long period. Hopefully, at that time the Government will be able to rely on the new permanent head for advice which comes not only from his Department but also from the very wide and extensive contacts that the head of the Department has in the Aboriginal community. I believe this is a very useful and good step forward. We wish both Lois O'Donoghue and Charles Perkins well in their new positions. Presumably this will be the last time we will hear about them in this place because, as departmental people, they will be now in a non- contentious area. However, I doubt that very much. Because of the type of people they are I believe they will be mentioned in here from time to time. I think that will be useful. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(3.34) —I note the statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, regarding the considerable changes that have occurred which are designed to put authority and responsibility into Aboriginal hands. I congratulate Charlie Perkins on the fact that he is now the first person of Aboriginal descent to become permanent head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I have known Charlie all his life, and his family in Alice Springs. Over the years Charlie has gone ahead from milestone to milestone to arrive at his present position. I know that in the challenge ahead of him-there will be a considerable challenge-he will be ably assisted by his wife, who will give him tremendous support. I speak of challenge. I believe that Charlie Perkins has a very difficult job ahead of him. I hope that now he is the departmental head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs he will bring about a continuing review of assistance in all matters relating to Aboriginality. The challenge is tremendous. The many Aboriginals who were born in the bush, who live there and who no doubt will die there, are still the have-nots. At times I wonder, when I consider the vast amount of money that is spent on Aboriginal affairs, whether sufficient money reaches the people of the bush. A vast number of organisations have developed within Aboriginality. Many staff are employed within those organisations. Sometimes I feel there are too many chiefs and few Indians. The point I make is that-I say this as a challenge to Charlie Perkins-a continuing review of expenditure in matters relating to Aboriginals is necessary. He may find there are many actions that he can take to ensure that the people whom I have described-those on the bottom rung-will receive more benefit than they receive now, and in some places, whether they be cities or towns, there are the haves and the have-nots. I look to Charlie Perkins to accept that challenge. There is another challenge which I believe he will pick up. I was quite interested in the remarks of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs when, in the last page of his statement, he said: This Government stands for reconciliation. The reconciliation will not be achieved until there is a recognition by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal of the worth of each other in a multicultural society where each has an important role to play and a contribution to make. I support the Minister very strongly in those remarks. I commend him for seeing, in the arrangements that he has brought about, that this will happen. I also challenge Charlie Perkins to be the bridge in many instances in the territory and the outback between white and black to bring about better relations. I could go on at length about that, but time is against me. I wish to speak very briefly about Lois O'Donoghue, who is a most delightful and capable person. In her years of service to Aboriginal Hostels Ltd she made a remarkable effort on behalf of the people who have been housed by that organisation. Honourable senators may remember that last Thursday I spoke on the report that Lois O'Donoghue produced, the 1982-83 report on Aboriginal Hostels Ltd. I know that in the future vast demands will be made on her regarding the creation of the new Aboriginal Housing Authority, which I support. I think that if anyone has the ability to carry out the job, it is Lois O'Donoghue. I congratulate her on the distinction of being the first person, an Aboriginal woman, to be in charge of the new Aboriginal Housing Authority. I know that if anyone can make a success of this new organisation-it has to be success-that person is Lois O'Donoghue. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.39) —I do not wish to extend greatly the debate that has perhaps gone on longer than the Government expected in any event, but there are a couple of things I wish to say in support of what has been said by my Opposition colleagues. Firstly, I refer to the appointment of Mr Charles Perkins. I extend my congratulations to Mr Perkins. I have had a great deal to do with him. He was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs when I was the Minister. Whilst I was the Minister he was appointed to the Aboriginal Development Commission as its Chairman. The Fraser Government put a great deal of responsibility on to Charles Perkins and gave him the most significant role that I think had ever been given to an Aboriginal person in government. Now that he has been made the Secretary, the head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, he has, as Senator Baume put it, achieved something which can never be matched by anybody else. He has been a first in his field and that can never be taken from him. In extending my personal good wishes to him, I say that he will have to face two substantial hurdles in carrying out his task. One is a hurdle which is common to anyone working in an Aboriginal organisation, and that is to represent all the interests of Aboriginals. Certainly my own experience has been that in that community, as in any community, there are factions and different interest groups. I believe it will require enormous wisdom on the part of Mr Perkins to represent all the differing Aboriginal interests that he has to represent as Secretary to the Department. I wish him well in that endeavour. I believe it will be an enormous challenge for him, as it would be for anyone else. Also, he will face the very great challenge of representing the public interest in a broader sense. Mr Perkins has always been a radical. He said so himself on the weekend. The new role given to him by the Government will require him to see very clearly the community interests as well as the interests of the Aboriginal people of Australia. I wish him well in facing the very real challenges in both those areas. So far as Mrs O'Donoghue is concerned, I can only say that I have not met a more delightful person of any race, colour or creed. I believe that she has an enormous reservoir of goodwill among all those who have ever dealt with her. I simply join with other honourable senators in saying that I have great confidence in her. I hope she gets great satisfaction from the significant tasks that the Government has given her to carry out in addition to those that she already holds. Lastly, I acknowledge the work of John Taylor. I do not think that any bureaucrat, be he Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, regards the appointment as Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as an appointment to an easy post. Mr Taylor, who served in that position for some years, is to be thanked for his application to the task and for the fact that he took on that task in what was, I am sure, a sideways move rather than a promotional one. I wish him well in his new job in New York. John Taylor is one of a line of distinguished public servants who have headed the Department. I refer also to Mr Tony Ayers, the present head of the Department of Social Security, and Sir David Hay, now retired. All those people have served the Aboriginal people well in that capacity. On behalf of the Opposition, I thank John Taylor for his work as Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.43) —I commend the two appointments and I wish the appointees well and every success in their journeys. I do that primarily because it was my pleasure to come to know Charles Perkins during the four years that I was privileged to hold the education portfolio in the Federal Parliament. At the time I held that portfolio it included responsibility for education in the Northern Territory. That meant that I was responsible for the education not only of non-Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory but also for Aborigines wherever they may have been in the Territory. In carrying out that responsibility I found that there was an immense amount to learn, an immense amount of understanding to be gained. I have said in the Senate previously that at the end of four years I had fewer answers than I had at the start, but certainly I knew more about the questions to be posed and the probing to be done. That is the adventure all education Ministers face. I note that the Government Whip, Senator Robertson, acknowledges that. I think we are bipartisan in our attitudes to this immense problems. Charles Perkins, as permanent head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs-and uniquely so, as Senator Peter Baume and other honourable senators have said- faces problems more complex, diverse and unorthodox than any other permanent head because he must endeavour to interpret to the Government and the people of Australia, in full sympathy and wisdom, the needs and aspirations, the hopes and fears of a people whose cultures, far from being primitive, have been deep, complex, and far different from the structures of cultures in which we have walked. No other permanent head confronts that difficulty. Charles Perkins is, as he describes himself, an Alice Springs boy. He has made a very great journey. It is to his immense credit that he has journeyed that distance and kept the hopes and the needs of his people always in the forefront of his endeavours. Lois O'Donoghue has been spoken of with affection and admiration. I join other honourable senators in those remarks. In commending the appointments, I express my own sympathy to the people concerned at the immensity of the tasks that will at all times be daunting and challenging. These good people ought to know that we wish them well in their journeys and that at least we have an understanding of the immensity of their problems. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allocated under the sessional order for consideration of Government papers has expired. I make clear to the Senate that papers that are under debate at the time the sessional order interrupts them are automatically listed under General Business on Thursday. However, there are two other papers we have not considered. I will give the opportunity to any honourable senator who wishes it to take note of them without making a five- minute speech. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to ensure that the Members of the House of Representatives and of the Parliaments of the States are chosen directly and democratically by the people. Bill presented by Senator Macklin, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.48) —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. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This is the second time that a Bill with this title has been introduced to this Parliament. The first time was on the 8th November 1973, when the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, introduced a Bill which was substantially the same as the Bill before us today. The introduction of that Bill was the implementation of a promise made by Mr Whitlam on behalf of the Australian Government at the Australian Constitutional Convention held in Sydney in September of that year. The Bill had the aim, as indeed this one does, of writing into the Constitution the principle of substantial equality of electoral divisions for all the Parliaments of Australia, that is, one person, one vote of equal value to every other vote. The then Opposition, under the leadership of Mr Snedden, opposed the Bill, basically, it appears to me, because it felt that the stated principle was not being implemented by Mr Whitlam's Bill. The Opposition argued, quite correctly I believe, that by making electorates equal in the sense that they were to have an equal number of people in them, would not give votes equal value . The argument advanced by some people, especially city members of the House of Representatives, is that from a work load point of view, these members still have to represent people who are not registered to vote and consequently should be allowed to have them counted in the numbers. From my point of view, this is going about things the wrong way around. Indeed, I believe that we would be far better off encouraging these people to become Australian citizens, if they are not already, and to register to vote. Constitution Alteration (Democratic Elections) Bill Given the strong feeling exhibited in 1973 about whether electorates should be divided on the basis of electors or people, I thought it best to wait until the Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill had passed through Parliament before raising the matter again. I had thought that we might well see a debate at that time on whether electorates should continue to be divided along current lines- that is, number of electors-or whether the Government would take up the Whitlam proposal again and attempt to divide electorates along the lines of numbers of people in them. No debate arose, and I take heart from that, that the present Labor Government is quite happy to accept what I take to be the Opposition line, that things remain the way they are. As a result of this I have amended Mr Whitlam's original Bill so that the numbers ascertained in respect of Divisions shall be, as nearly as practicable, the same in respect of the numbers of electors rather than the numbers of people in each electorate. This concept I believe should now have the support of the vast majority of senators and members in this Parliament. Although it is a principle which appears to have the almost complete support of Federal parliamentarians, and indeed the people of Australia , it is a principle which is obviously not supported by all parliamentarians at the State level. I believe that the time has come for the people of the States to have their say on whether or not their current situations should be allowed to continue. Unfortunately no State Parliament requires a vote of electors in order to change its own Constitution in this regard. Indeed, not even the Federal Constitution requires that change. But I believe it is time that we enshrined the principle in the Federal Constitution so that future governments are not persuaded to change the principle now established for purely political gain. There are two other changes which have been made to Mr Whitlam's original Bill which I will mention briefly here. The first of these is a purely technical one to rectify an inconsistency in Mr Whitlam's wording of section 5 and section 7 of the Bill. I do not believe that this change will have any effect on the implementation of the Bill if it is adopted. The second change is to allow parliaments to decide to grant the right to vote to people under the age of 18 if they so desire. This change may be more controversial. My reason for incorporating this change is quite simple. Given the difficulties in making amendments to the Constitution, I do not believe that we should enshrine the 18- year-old age limit for voting into the Constitution, as the time may well come- even if it is 20 or 30 years away-or even more, that we may wish to give 17 or even 16 year-olds the vote. This issue was raised in particular relation to 17- year-olds being conscripted to fight in Vietnam even though they did not have the vote. I believe personally that this was going too far. It is one thing to force 6 to 15-year-olds to go to school, whether or not it is one of their own choosing, but it is quite a different matter to ask a 17-year-old to fight in a war which he or she might wish to oppose by voting for a political party which opposed such a war if he or she were entitled to vote. A vote of 17-year-olds might well have made the difference in 1969 as to who governed this country and as to whether or not this country continued to conscript people to go to Vietnam . When this Bill was last raised in Parliament the question was raised by Senator Little as to whether the Bill would allow proportional representation and whether or not the government of the day supported that proposal. Unfortunately the Government did not, as it still does not; but the Bill does allow for that type of system to exist, as it already does in Tasmania. As I said in my second reading speech on the Commonwealth Electoral Legislation Amendment Bill, I believe that the fact that proportional representation for the House of Representatives was missing from that Bill, effectively means that the Bill did not really grapple with the last major task of reform in the electoral process. I believe that is a bitter disappointment to many people in the community who feel that that is a necessary move that we must take. I hope that in the future it will be seen to be a necessary reform and that eventually it will be taken. The acceptance of this Bill will certainly do nothing to hinder that development . As my colleague, Senator Jack Evans, said in his second reading speech on the aforementioned Bill, the omission of proportional representation means that Australia continues with the very lopsided, winner takes all system of having governments elected. 'Winner takes all' follows automatically from a system under which there is a single candidate elected for an electorate and a candidate has to attract only 50 per cent of the vote plus one to win. There is no justice and no fairness in that kind of system. I think most people in Australia are now aware that the newer countries which have been formed since this country was federated and since we have had the single member electorate imposed on us from the turn of the century, have opted for proportional representation. Honourable senators may wish to look back over this part of Senator Evans' speech which can be found on pages 3058 and 3059 of the Hansard for 30 November 1983. Before concluding I draw honourable Senators' attention to two other provisions in the Bill. Section 25 of the Constitution provides that if by the law of any State persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the State, then in reckoning the number of people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. This is an archaic and objectionable provision. It is not within the spirit of the wishes of any political party in this place, and the Bill provides for the repeal of that section. By these measures I believe we will add much to the durability of our parliamentary systems, and remove injustices which have lived too long. I also draw the Senate's attention to a further provision in the Bill. It is designed to ensure that cases can be brought before the High Court in relation to matters arising in the electoral provisions of State or Australian law. The way in which this is done is to include a new section of the Constitution that will permit an elector of the Commonwealth to bring a relevant matter before the High Court, and an elector in a State to raise a matter relating to that State. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) ajourned. Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.50) —The Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2) represents a further stage in the current dispute between the Government and members of the medical profession in Australia. The Bill is belated and partial recognition by the Government that one section of the Government's arrangements, namely, section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, is not fair and in its current form is unacceptable. In addition, it contains provisions which can give approval to existing contracts even where doctors do not wish to sign new contracts under Medicare. This may be a manoeuvre designed to bring some doctors into the scheme irrespective of whether or not they want it or whether or not they know it. As it currently stands, the now notorious section 17 gives to the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) the unfettered power to determine the acceptability of contracts between doctors and hospitals without any provision for oversight, arbitration or appeal by those who are affected by the contracts. It is this provision which has resulted in quite unprecedented industrial action and the threat of industrial action by doctors. Never before in the history of the medical profession in Australia has such a step been taken. Equally, never before in Australia has there been such an intrusion into the professional and personal operation of the practice of medicine. The situation that now exists is at least partly due to the Government's refusal last September to accept what it now offers by way of compromise. I remind the Senate that last September the Opposition in this place put forward an amendment to the enabling legislation which would have allowed for parliamentary scrutiny of any guidelines gazetted by the Minister. When that was being debated in the Senate, what did Senator Grimes have to say? On that occasion Senator Grimes described my amendment-it was my amendment-as 'an unnecessary impediment'. The Government did not support the amendment. The amendment now comes to the Senate under the auspices of that same Government. But it is no longer an 'unnecessary impediment'; it is now presented to us as a constructive proposal. I can only assume that the Government finds that it is wiser now than it was last September. This is a demonstration of political expediency but it comes at a time when circumstances have changed markedly from those that applied last year. The Bill before us was debated in the other place on Thursday night of last week, 29 March. Anyone who wishes to can read that debate and see the contributions by the Government members. They will see that, with the exception of the speech of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Snow, contributions by other Government members represent an all-out attack on doctors and the medical profession by those who spoke in the debate on behalf of the Government. As I have said, I exclude one member. The debate last Thursday went far beyond the provisions of the Bill. It misrepresented the issues. It misrepresented the effect on the operation of Medicare of opposition from the doctors. The misrepresentation that went on was not only in the House of Representatives. I remind honourable senators of what is contained in the Senate Hansard of last Wednesday when Senator Sibraa asked a question. I refer honourable senators to that question on page 785. It was a question that misrepresented circumstances in Canberra. Senator Sibraa's question was: 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 industrial action being taken by radiologists? . . . The fact is that Senator Georges was not refused X-ray treatment. The situation is that the circumstances applying in the Royal Canberra Hospital last week were exactly those that always apply. They were not the result of any industrial action. I phoned the superintendent of the hospital to check the facts and received his personal assurance that there was no industrial action. What we have here is just part of a pattern which is misrepresenting the position of doctors, misrepresenting the circumstances in the community and misrepresenting the effects which the current dispute has on Medicare. Why has the Government picked on doctors? It is a fact that most doctors oppose Australian Labor Party policy. Most doctors are individual entrepreneurs in a society where that is apparently unfashionable with this Government. Most doctors oppose the nationalisation by this Government of health insurance. Most doctors are determined to fight for decent contract conditions for themselves under Medicare if they are to operate in the hospitals. They are regarded by some of the speakers last week as tall poppies. Any reading of the speeches that were made in the other place will reveal outright class hatred and hatred of doctors as a class of people. One might ask why Government members have pushed this argument so hard and why they are trying to force doctors to accept the contracts offered to them. The reason is that the Australian Constitution contains words designed to prevent the direct nationalisation of medical practice. If this is prevented directly by the Constitution, what is being sought by our political opponents are ways of doing it indirectly. The Constitution says that there shall be no civil conscription of doctors. Of course, since Commonwealth law overrides State law, it is likely that there can be no civil conscription of doctors at State level either. But Medicare has caused a confrontation and has provided a convenient basis for the socialist Left to attack the profession, to attack the doctors and to attack the way they operate and what they stand for. The centre of the argument from the Government has been that the doctors' intransigence or opposition will affect Medicare and its cost. Let us put that furphy to rest. Medicare benefits are fixed. Medicare benefits are 85 per cent of the schedule fee. It would not matter if I charged a patient a million dollars for some procedure. The fact is that a doctor can draw as a Medicare benefit only 85 per cent of the schedule fee. While ever those fees are contained in the schedule, the amount which goes out under Medicare is fixed. Whether the doctors charge the schedule fee, below the schedule fee or above the schedule fee, the Medicare benefit is fixed at 85 per cent of the schedule fee. In that case, how is it that the payout of benefits can rise? How can it rise, even if the fee rises? Of course, most doctors charge the schedule fee. I was indebted to my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar, Mr Carlton, in the other place last week when he drew attention to Press statements by the Minister for Health in South Australia, Dr Cornwall, who said that he had looked at diagnostic specialists in that State, that they were all already charging the schedule fee or less and that he was perfectly happy with the contracts that they had signed. Those doctors and the doctors in Victoria and New South Wales are in fact complying as a matter of good practice with the kinds of conditions which are being sought by this Government. However, I come back to the fact that details in those contracts will not affect the payments, the outgoings, under Medicare. The only conceivable way that the costs under Medicare could go up, if the doctor were charging a bit more, is if the little extra increments for each service for any patient added up in the end to something more than $150 in one year. Only in that circumstance would the Government have to pick up the whole schedule fee as its benefits. Of course, other ways in which payments could vary under Medicare include if the Government had a hidden agenda; if the Government intended to vary the schedule fees down and then required doctors under the terms of contract to lower what they claim; if the Government intended in some way through a hidden agenda to make bulk billing compulsory at a later date and then required doctors , as a basis of participation, to become bulk billing practitioners; or if at a later date moves were made by this Government to limit the delivery of services. Unless those things happen, and the Government has given no indication that they will, there can be no significant effect at all upon Medicare costs while this argument rages. It is absolute nonsense for the Government to argue that it must win this battle to control the cost of Medicare in the interests of the Australian people. It is simply not correct to put this argument because the benefits to be paid out are equal to 85 per cent of the schedule fee in any circumstance and that will continue whether or not the doctors are charging one fee or another fee. One of the tragedies of this whole debate is the fact that the Government seems to have lost sight of the fact that society, the community, needs doctors. Of course, Medicare needs the doctors. Medicare cannot operate without them. No Minister for Health in Australia can ever deliver the services to people under Medicare. No bureaucrat can deliver the health services. No State Minister or State official can deliver the services. No hospital bureaucrat or administrator can deliver the health services. The only people who can deliver them are health personnel who relate to individual patients. They are the people who will deliver under Medicare the individual services which really, in the end, are what the Government is out to see delivered. Among those health personnel, of course, are doctors. In fact, they provide most of the essential services which Medicare will cover. The system will not operate unless the doctors agree to be part of it. The system cannot operate unless the doctors can be part of Medicare and can feel that they are being treated honourably and honestly in going into the arrangement. We have an extraordinary situation in that the Australian Labor Party failed to deal and come to any agreement with the doctors, with those whom it expects to provide the services, before it introduced its scheme. This, of course, is an example of stunning incompetence by the Australian Labor Party and the Minister. It shows an arrogant disregard for the putting into place of proper arrangements in relation to this scheme. If Medicare is to be delivered by the medical profession, the Government should have sat down and worked out some adequate arrangements before it put the legislative framework into place. That it did not do so makes the current conflict its own fault. Of course, the Government has now come back through the Press and through its Ministers to try to force a profession to accept what is unacceptable, to sign contracts which are unacceptable and to do things which that profession will not do. I might say that I have noticed today that as a result of discussions which have taken place, the Australian Medical Association and the Minister for Health hope that the Penington Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals might come up with some satisfactory compromise arrangement. We would be delighted if that could be the outcome. We would be delighted if arrangements could be made which would meet the essential needs of the medical profession to be treated decently in this matter. The Government does not want to forget that hospital practice is only one option. There are many other options open to doctors who are anxious to serve the public. Never forget that doctors such as radiologists and pathologists would be much better off financially if they left the hospitals and went into private practice. Some of my colleagues, and I am a doctor, who decided to go into hospital radiology practice did so in the full knowledge that they would be earning much less money, that they would be trading off certain professional satisfaction which hospital service would give them against the income they could earn if they went into private practice using their skills. The Government needs these specialists to make its scheme work. The Government needs radiologists in its hospitals working under Medicare. It needs pathologists in its hospitals working under Medicare. It will ignore that fact at its peril. Unless it can find a way for them to be able to sign contracts which they feel are acceptable they will withdraw and go to private practice. They will say to the Government: 'Run your own hospital system as you can'. They will still give service to the public without civil conscription and without bowing to the demands of any particular government. What about the doctors who were attacked so much last week in the House of Representatives? The medical profession is still a profession which on survey is held in the highest regard by the Australian public. It is still the first career choice of the very best intellectual talent from our schools. But it is a profession in which people do not begin to earn any money at all until they are in their mid-20s. It is a profession in which most members extend their study life-long. They continue to study each week and throughout their lives to keep themselves up with current information. They undertake extensive continuing education, sometimes intensive, to acquire extra diplomas and degrees in certain specialty areas. It just so happens that last Saturday, just two days ago, I attended a course conducted by the post-graduate committees of medicine of the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales at which some highly technical information on the subject of immunology was given to bring doctors up to date. Although this was the first fine Saturday in Sydney for weeks and weeks more than 100 doctors paid for the privilege of attending. They gave up their entire day to advance their own knowledge because that is the professionally responsible way to behave. The doctors who came under attack work for extraordinarily long hours. It is a matter of statistical fact that doctors suffer some of the worst rates for early death, illness, suicide, psychiatric breakdown, drug abuse and marital breakdown . These are some of the penalties they pay. Senator Crowley —They get better with more money, do they, Senator? Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested to hear Senator Crowley's response. I would not mind coming into my home the kind of income coming into hers. While I live on a senator's salary, her household receives that salary plus a professorial salary. So the honourable senator should not pretend to be a representative of the workers. She will ride, no doubt, to the barricades in her Volvo or whatever . I would also like to say that the gross fees which doctors receive, and I am talking about procedural doctors such as radiologists, do not represent their income. It is all very well for politicians, anxious to make a point, to talk about the gross amount of money that may have been taken out in one doctor's name or one other doctor's name. There are two answers to that. First of all, that is the gross money from which equipment has to be purchased and staff have to be paid; it does not represent the income. Secondly, in hospitals it is not infrequent for all the bills to be sent out in one name on behalf of a number of doctors. Unless one is certain that the bills going out relate to a doctor's services, one can in fact mislead people either intentionally or unintentionally by using one doctor's name and one amount and assuming it is income that person has received. We are very concerned when Dr Blewett says that his Government has made every effort to be reasonable. How reasonable was it when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke ), that champion of consensus and reconciliation, likened the medical profession to the Builders Labourers Federation? How reasonable are the references to doctors as greedy and elitist when those claims are made by Government members and are there in Hansard for all to see? How reasonable is it when we examine concessions claimed by the Government, only to find that they are not concessions at all? The Opposition welcomes the establishment of the Penington committee to inquire into the areas of dispute, but, in the meantime, Dr Blewett insists that doctors should sign the contracts. The Bill has brought in amendments which, to my mind, will deem them to have signed the contract, even if they were previous contracts. Quite rightly, the doctors are not prepared to lock themselves into a situation which could be rendered unnecessary depending on the kind of report which Professor Penington brings down and subsequent consideration of that report by the Government. Dr Blewett has since retreated a little and so he should. He says he is perfectly happy to defer the guidelines pending the report by the Penington inquiry but only if the Australian Medical Association promises in advance to accept the recommendations of that inquiry. How can it give that kind of commitment before it knows what the findings will be? If today's news reports indicate that there is some movement towards a compromise we shall be pleased, but until we know the details we have no reason to trust that we are on the right track or to be confident. We think that if the Government were genuine in its desire to be reasonable, it would hold the entire matter of guidelines in abeyance until the Penington report is to hand and until the Government has had a chance to consider that report and make its views known. The Opposition is concerned because doctors at present will not sign the contracts which have been offered to them. If the State governments say that doctors cannot continue to serve the people without signing those contracts, it will be up to the States to lock doctors out of the hospitals in which they offer services. Tempers at present are high and while the present Bill seeks to give to Parliament a power which we thought it should have from the beginning, and while we will support that part of it-after all, it is our amendment-we believe that the Bill is not sufficient. For that reason the Opposition has gone further and we have a private members Bill which seeks to remove the provisions that have caused all the confrontation. It is confrontation about matters which are not essential to Medicare's operation and which do not relate essentially to the costs of Medicare. The provisions are nothing to do with the Government's desire to have a nationalised health insurance system. They do have to do with the Government's desire to control the medical profession and to bring it to heel. For these reasons the Opposition believes that the Government amendments do not go far enough. Therefore I now move an amendment to the second reading motion. It states: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should take immediate steps to resolve the dispute between the Minister for Health and the doctors by accepting the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 introduced into the Senate by Senator Baume on 28 March 1984 '. The Opposition will also move some amendments in the Committee stage which may have the result of putting into effect some of the provisions of the private member's Bill to which I referred. In summary, although section 17 is not essential to Medicare's operation, its continuance in its present form represents a quite unacceptable intrusion into the arrangements in Australia between private doctors and the hospitals within which they work. The Government portrays the Opposition as having an ideological bias against Medicare. We certainly oppose Medicare but it is now the law of the land. We think it could be more properly stated that the Government has an ideological objection against private medical practice in Australia and its present insistence is making that more apparent each day. We want the Government to demonstrate without any further equivocation its commitment to the principle of private medical practice; its recognition of the traditional doctor-patient relationship; its recognition of the fact that most doctors in Australia have operated in ways with which it would agree; and that most hospital contracts have provided for fees to be at or below the scheduled fee. Most hospital contracts have provided already for service charges; most already provide that the income doctors receive is much less than the fee charged. We want the Government in the interest of the Australian people to withdraw the unnecessary and offensive provisions of section 17 at least while the matter is taken further by the Penington inquiry. We believe that it is only the people of Australia who can lose in the present confrontation. We do not believe that the Government has any mandate to move to bring the medical profession either into compulsory bulk billing or into compulsory adherence to certain fees. The medical profession is there to provide services to the people in a variety of ways. Until the Government can find its way clear to deal honourably and fairly with those it expects to deliver its Medicare scheme, so long will this confrontation continue and so long will the responsibility for that confrontation rest with the Government. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.16) —Until Senator Peter Baume rose to speak, I was under the distinct impression that the dispute that has been making headlines for the last month or more was about a matter of considerable principle, for which I had great sympathy, and not about money. Senator Baume spent a large amount of the time devoted to his remarks in discussing the reverse point of view-in other words, that this matter was more about money than principle. The newspaper reports of the concerns expressed by the Australian Medical Association over the Medicare legislation as it exists up to today is centred on the fact that the dispute related to a matter of principle under which no other group in the community was being asked to operate. The AMA in all the reports I have seen indicated that the dispute was not about whether private specialists or medical specialists with private patients in public hospitals should charge the schedule fee. Most, I have been assured, do so. Indeed, one specialist in the Australian Capital Territory informed me that the majority of his colleagues charge less than the schedule fee. I was informed that the dispute was not about whether these specialists should pay a facilities fee since most diagnostic specialists are already paying such fees, some of them quite high fees. I understood from newspaper reports that it was not a matter of whether doctors should or should not enter into contracts with the public hospitals in which they work, because most already have some sort of contract. I was assured time and again that the dispute related to the fact that under the present system it was possible for the terms and conditions of these medical specialists with private patients in public hospitals to have their contracts unilaterally determined and/or changed by the Minister for Health at any time he or a subsequent Minister saw fit; that there was no right of appeal for all or any of the medical practitioners affected; that there was no parliamentary scrutiny with no requirement for consultation between the Minister and doctors concerned and that these matters added to their concerns. Senator Peter Baume —Senator Haines is quite right. Senator HAINES —I thank Senator Baume for that comment. I was under the impression that the concerns were likely to be assuaged if the legislation was amended so that the Minister did not have these unfettered powers-in other words , so that there was some scrutiny and so that the medical profession or this section of the medical profession was not placed in a position under which no other section of the community would like itself placed under. At the moment we do not have a situation where any unionist, teacher, journalist or business executive is placed in a position where the contract that he begins to work under can be altered by the whim or the decision of any person. It does not exist for anybody else. The AMA seems to make it clear that it simply wants to be treated with the same sort of courtesy. This amending Bill brought forward by the Government will therefore 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. I accept the fact that the AMA is concerned that at some time in the future this chamber, as the other, may be in the hands of a political party for which it has no sympathy and which has no sympathy for the medical profession. But that is a long way in the future. I suggest we could get ourselves into a tremendous dither if we sit around worrying about that, no matter what piece of legislation comes before us. This amendment 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. It has been suggested by some that a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would be a suitable means by which groups of doctors or individual doctors could attain some sort of appeal and change to their condition- Senator Peter Baume —I have expert advice that that is not possible. Senator HAINES —I have had the same expert advice, Senator Baume, and I am therefore pleased to say that the statement I made last year, when rejecting your amendment to the original Bill-to refer it, I think, to the AAT-namely, that there were constitutional problems, at that time had some merit. Senator Teague —You accepted his amendment. Senator HAINES —Indeed we did not. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! These private conversations are interesting but could you direct your remarks through the Chair? Senator HAINES —Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator Teague's comment was in fact not accurate. There was a whole assortment of amendments last year but the two we are concerned with related, firstly, to regulatory powers and, secondly, to a right of appeal. The comments I made about doubtful constitutionality, which I used as justification for not supporting Senator Baume's amendment, related to the right of appeal amendment. We too, like Senator Baume, have had advice that an appeal to the AAT is not going to be possible since the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can determine only whether the guidelines laid down have in fact been adhered to. It is not in any position to determine whether the guidelines are nice or nasty; it can determine simply whether the decision of the Minister of Health, taken under the guidelines, is applicable and fair. Of course there are ample precedents for treating as regulations other determinations or guidelines made by a Minister. A number of Acts which have come before this place recently and in the past have made sure that determinations, guidelines, plans of action, programs of action and so on that are in pieces of legislation are given parliamentary scrutiny. Section 58C of the Defence Act 1903, for example, refers to determinations made by a Minister with relation to remuneration, payment of allowances, other pecuniary benefits, long service leave and so on. Those are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and hence to appeal through that mechanism. There are others. Section 10 (2) and (3) of the Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978, section 426 (1) of the Navigation Act 1912 and section 17 (3) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 all provide this form of parliamentary appeal and scrutiny. At no stage in any of the Acts I have just mentioned is reference made to any consultative requirement of the Minister. But I suggest that the comment made by the Minister in his second reading speech is appropriate at this stage. He said: I believe that that AMA and other medical groups should accept this Bill as substantially achieving their aims in relation to appeal rights under section 17 . It is obvious that any Federal government would find it impossible to introduce unreasonable quidelines under section 17 because it would require the consent of both Houses of Federal Parliament, and also the agreement of State parliaments to any complementary legislation or regulations made by State governments. That fits in with a comment I made last week in a matter of public importance relating to this matter; that in fact it would be foolhardy for any Minister to contemplate bringing forward orders, determinations, directions, plans of management, guidelines or whatever without undertaking some form of consultation with the groups concerned. To do so, as the Minister has indicated in his second reading speech, would invite not only controversy but also the almost certain disallowance by one House of Parliament not in the control of the Government. So in essence the purpose of this Bill is very similar to what I aim to do in the private members Bill which I introduced last week; that is, to 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-I must say here that the term 'unfettered powers' was used, as I understand it, first by the AMA, and is the problem around which the dispute substantially hinges-the amendment provides for parliamentary scrutiny and debate and would ensure that the Minister undertakes prior consultation with the profession. That this is in fact the primary concern of the medical profession is indicated in a recent letter to all major newspapers which I referred to again last week but which I think bears looking at again, in which 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. He went on to say: 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. Even nationalisation of an industry should not destroy such a right. As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, this expression of opinion by the Chairman of the Victorian State Committee of the Australian Association of Surgeons is one with which I have considerable sympathy. Clearly the amendment to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, which is before us today, will satisfy both the basic problems that the good doctor mentioned in that letter. It also satisfies the concern expressed with regard to the right of an individual or groups to negotiate their conditions of work. Senator Baume said this is not sufficient. He said it was sufficient last year. Mr Carlton said that if it had been in place last year none of this wrangle would have happened. It is simply not possible to have it both ways. Senator Peter Baume —I did not ever say it was sufficient, not last year or any time. I put up extra amendments for you last year. You know that; you just referred to them. Senator HAINES —Indeed, and we supported most of them. The only one we did not as a group support was that concerning the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and Senator Baume himself has admitted that was constitutionally suspect. Therefore, one would expect that the passage of this amending Bill today will go a long way towards solving the dispute that exists between the AMA and the present Government. I am not quite sure why it will not go the whole way, except that the profession is still clearly concerned about the vexed question of the need for a regular formalised review of the schedule fee. Certainly that is a problem , as Senator Baume indicates. Senator Peter Baume —Yes. Senator HAINES —However, the brief conversations I have had with members of the profession on this matter indicate that they themselves are unable to agree on what the criteria for the basis of a regular formalised review of the schedule fee should be. At one stage it was suggested to me that even attaching it to the consumer price index might be appropriate. Somebody else suggested that a specific percentage ought to be considered but at the moment the profession is not united on what it sees as the basis for this review. However, that all of us would regard it as a fairly urgent matter for the Government to look into is not in dispute. The Penington inquiry now has responsibility for considering and making recommendations on other areas of concern that have been expressed by the AMA and the Government. Comments in recent days indicate that the report of that committee might solve this whole unfortunate affair. Until the report comes down , however, the passage of this amending Bill seems a reasonable and effective interim measure. In closing, I raise the question of the constitutionality of the whole section 17 which has been brought into contention. The only way that can be solved is if section 17 actually remains in the Act and is challenged at High Court level. I point out that, notwithstanding any amendments that are or are not made to the Judiciary Act, constitutional challenges provide for about the only remaining right of appeal to the High Court. So if the AMA believes, as what was then known as the British Medical Association believed in 1949, that it has a just case to challenge section 17 on the grounds that it is civil conscription-I imagine, from the 2:3 majority decision in that case, that it would have good grounds for believing that it could successfully challenge this section-that is the path it should take. In the meantime, passage of this legislation will overcome the problems that the AMA has indicated for some time that it has with the whole Medicare legislation. It will provide parliamenary scrutiny, it will take away the unfettered powers of the Minister for Health and it will encourage consultation between the Minister and the doctors concerned or raise the real risk of disallowance of a regulation far more draconian or even slightly more draconian than the existing situation; that is a situation which most doctors aver occurs one in which most charge the schedule fee or less, most diagnostic specialists pay facilities fees and most of them enter into some form of contract with the hospitals. As far as Senator Baume's attachment to the second reading motion is concerned- I became aware of it only when he mentioned it during his speech-I suggest that the time and the place for this House to vote for or against a private member's Bill is when such a Bill rises to or is brought to the top of the Notice Paper on its own account. I will not be recommending to my colleagues that we support this attachment. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.35) —The Senate is debating an amendment to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act which relates to the treatment of private patients by visiting medical officers in public hospitals. Section 17 provides that, unless the visiting medical officer agrees to sign a contract dictated by the Commonwealth Government, the patient shall not be eligible for medical benefits under Medicare. That is the crux of the matter. Of course, the problem is unique. Nowhere else can one find these kinds of sanctions. This is the second sanction put on the patient under Medicare. The patient is being used to blackmail the medical profession. The biggest sanction-one that is intolerable and a complete denial of human rights-is that nobody in Australia under Medicare will have the right to take out private insurance against extra costs. There is absolutely no justification, in human rights terms, for that. It is a provision to bring duress on the medical profession to charge the basic fee and to bulk bill. That is undeniable and Senator Crowley has not denied that at all. Absolutely restricting human rights in order to force a socialist act is ugly and no member of the Hawke Government, least of all the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and any others who purport to be defenders of human rights, could come in here and support this action. It is a sanction against the patient. Now there is a second sanction that if the patient elects to go to a visiting medical officer in a public hospital as a private patient and does not inquire or know that the doctor has not signed the contract forced upon him that patient will not get medical benefits. That is a deliberate attempt to use a sanction against a patient to blackmail a doctor into performing under duress what the Government wants to be performed. So duress is used and, in fact, the patient is the target. Somehow or other this issue is being represented before the public as some kind of disorderly dog fight between the medical profession and the Government, as though the patient is not a part of it and as though the Government is looking to the interests of the patient. At the outset of any debate on this matter I want to make it perfectly clear that by those two sanctions and this duress, Medicare has very seriously damaged the interests of the patient. This legislation denies the patient the right to privately insure, but it goes further and says to the patient: 'If you are silly enough to elect to go as a private patient to a visiting medical officer in a public hospital and that visiting medical officer has not signed the contract, we will not give you any medical benefits.' What is the morality of this in the name of conscience? The Government is forcing everybody in the community to pay a one per cent tax levy and therefore, by any morality at all, a person ought to get the same benefit from that levy no matter what he elects to do. What right has the Government to exact a tribute from all people and then to say: 'If you do not choose a particular doctor we will punish you'? Is that the kind of socialism we are proud of? Are these the kinds of human rights about which we are proud? I want to look at the principles involved because very great principles are involved. I reject any idea that this is a kindly government benefiting the patient against a rapacious medical profession. Let us look at section 17. Nowhere in the whole arbitral system in Australia can we find a provision like this. Nowhere is there a provision that enforces a set of conditions upon a person or a group of people without their right, first of all, to prior discussion in the formulation of those provisions and, secondly, to appeal. The Australian Labor Party is strong on talking about arbitral provisions. It is a strong supporter of the arbitration system which is a system based on prior discussion, consensus and the right of appeal. But tragically, in this matter, uniquely the only profession, the only group of people which will be denied this , is the medical profession. But we can go a step further than that. Whenever, in a dialogue between an interest group and the government, some issue arises and the issue is put to examination by a committee, by appeal or by arbitration, there is an outstanding overriding principle, and that is that the status quo will remain until after that inquiry has been made, that there will be no alteration or enforcement until then and that, the inquiry having concluded, there is still a right of people to argue and debate. Uniquely in this case, the medical profession is being pressed and uniquely the duress of patient inconvenience is being used to squeeze that profession. There have been some violent expressions of melodramatic language used against the medical profession by the Labor Party and vituperation by Ministers of the Hawke Government. Why? They have said that the medical profession is like the builders labourers. I am something of a student of the Labor Party's platform and policies. I believe that the Labor Party has argued ardently over the years about the right of individuals and individual unions to withhold their services if they believe that they have a genuine dispute. Why then has the Government picked on this group? Certainly, doctors have tremendous responsibilities. But why this group? Let me hear the Government inveighing against the workers on Capital Hill who, for the last month or two, have been denying their services to the people of Australia- Senator Walters —To the taxpayers. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, to the taxpayers of Australia in the building of the new Parliament House. There has been an awesome silence from the Labor Party about that matter. Where then is the intervention by the Labor Party to overcome that dispute? Where then is this consensus? Where then is there any vituperation against those people who are withholding their services? It cannot be that in this argument of withholding services the Government is saying: 'We must intervene with the medical profession because so much of the public money goes into medical expenses and into the payment of medical practitioners'. Other professions are even more heavily involved; for example, the legal profession. Has anyone done any investigation into what an average family pays each year on third party and comprehensive insurance and what is paid by way of workers compensation, accident insurance, household insurance and so on-money that is really the backbone of the fees of the legal profession? Tens of millions of dollars a year-perhaps now hundreds of millions in legal aid through the Commonwealth Government-is spent on maintaining the legal profession . Does anyone say that we should regulate the legal profession? Does anyone say that no one lawyer, no matter how skilled he is compared with another, will get any more than the next lawyer? Does anyone say that they are getting much more money than they should? After all, so many of them are getting more than $61,000 that has been referred to by the Government in respect of visiting medical practitioners. So what is this all about? Senator Chaney —And which profession services the great bulk of the public? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes. I will press on further and mention accountants because the volume of work that accountants do largely arises from Acts of State and Federal governments that impose basic costs and charges. Should we regulate them? One could come to only one conclusion about this. When one sees that a government has set out to do something that is unique and something that offends all the principles that it has ever set, one can only say that it is being done to nationalise the profession. This is being done to nationalise medicine. For what other reason is it being done? For what other reason would the Government deny the basic human rights of ordinary Australians to self insure? Senator Walsh —We did it only to get you excited. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The honourable senator can be assured that the only persons who will get excited about this will be members of the Labor Party when the enormity of what they are doing is realised. These points are unarguable. Nowhere in the democratic world that I know of has any non-socialist country willingly said to a human being: 'I won't let you take a step to be voluntarily provident'. I ask honourable senators to tell me about any country which has done that and supported the principle behind it. It is an outrage to freedom. It has been done for a very simple reason. It has been done to force bulk billing and, therefore, to force a major change in the whole of the relationship between the community and the medical profession. Instead of the relationship being one of doctor and patient, one in which the patient by contracting with the doctor, achieves a service, one in which the patient, can select a doctor with special qualities and special charges, what is being done is to say that the relationship will be between government and doctors and it will be on the basis of a doctor bulk billing. The computer will decide the answers to this situation . The patient will not be a significant part of it. Otherwise, why do it? Why threaten the patient? Section 17 does threaten the patient as the denial of gap insurance threatens the patient. It is nonsense to say that the patient is not involved in this dispute. Of course the patient is involved. In any democracy a patient who pays for health insurance should have the absolute right to choose the specialist of his or her choice and get the benefit what that service provides. To say: 'We will tax you but certain of you, if you behave in a particular way, will not get the benefit' is a rejection of human rights. Let that be perfectly clear. So the matter narrows down to what we are looking at with this problem. Clearly the States have indicated-certainly Mr Roper in Victoria and Dr Cornwall in South Australia have indicated-that there is not a problem as they see it. The States clearly have responsibility for hospitals. The States have the responsibility not only for the cost of the internal management of hospitals but also for the relationship between the doctor and the patient. The States and not the Commonwealth are to decide what shall be that relationship, who shall be the specialists, what shall be the diagnostic aids and the procedures available. There is now an intrusion, using section 51 of the Constitution, a section dubious in its application to this legislation, which has the Commonwealth moving in and pushing the States aside, saying that it will lay down the terms. But of course the question of how the hospital is run with its interns, its residents, its registrars and its visiting specialists must be in the final analysis a matter for the States. Senator Haines said that she was surprised to hear the intrusion of the argument about costs. I put it to the Senate that it was not Senator Baume who intruded that argument. If one runs through the debates in the other place and the statements of the Hawke Government one sees that the intrusion is an argument about greedy practitioners who want to overcharge. Let us refute that straight away. Let us refute it by pointing to the fact that we know from Mr Roper and Dr Cornwall that in their States they would have found it unnecessary to bring in price control arrangements to enforce the basic fee. In fact, they have both come out and said that in their States all doctors charge either the prescribed fee or less. That has been the case under ordinary contracts that have been operating over the years. In New South Wales it appears that that is also so. Equally, the question of how much a visiting medical officer shall repay to the hospital by way of facility fees has been traditionally over the years a matter between the hospital administration and the visiting medical officer. No one has ardently suggested that there has been an abuse of this practice. If there has been any abuse, it is entirely a matter for the State governments to rectify. The Minister, in his second reading speech, copiously quoted from the report of the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals in support of his arguments for Federal intervention. But the very matters that he quoted are those that relate entirely to State responsibilities and the question of hospitals putting their houses in order, if indeed that is necessary. The Jamison report suggested that the overuse of diagnostic facilities in hospitals might be inquired into. If there is, in fact, this overuse, not only VMOs, but also interns, registrars and all the procedures of the hospitals should be looked into at a State level. If one looks at Dr Blewett 's speech step by step, one sees that he is arguing on totally false grounds. Equally, I am quite sure that whatever a High Court may decide in the future, there was never any intention in the mind of the public when it passed the amendment to the Constitution some decades ago that it would bring about a condition such as has been brought about today. The amendment to section 51 of the Constitution provides: The provision of . . . medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription) . . . It seems that at the very least there is a strong case to argue that what the Government is doing is an abuse of the intention of that provision. I make that quite clear because quite often what the public decides in a referendum that words mean and what a High Court decides they mean can be quite different. I have no doubt in the world that this is so, because I was active at the time the amendment was made. I remember very well the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Menzies, interpolating those words 'but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription'. I remember very clearly that there was no intention in the Parliament's mind or in the mind of the public outside to do what has been done today. The Government has set up the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals. That inquiry is proceeding. The only logical thing to do would be to stand at ease, to preserve the status quo, until the inquiry is over. When the inquiry report comes in it should be a matter for public debate. It would be good if the report were one that could provide consensus and solve the problem. If not, let us have the debate, let us get to the core of it. I repeat: I know of no other instance, when an inquiry has been set up, of the status quo being altered pending that inquiry and the discussion following the report of the inquiry. I know of no other instance in which the Prime Minister or anyone else has said to any other profession: 'Yes, we will lift the present requirements for signing a contract now if you will agree to the Penington report, whatever it may be'. A game of blindman's buff? Where indeed is the morality of that? We are dealing with a series of events which challenge the test of public morality. Let us look at them. In the first place there is the denial of the right of the individual to take voluntary steps to insure privately against extra costs. What justification can there be for that denial? There is the denial of the right of a private patient to get medical benefits, the patient having paid a tax levy, if that patient chooses to go to a specialist as a private patient in a public hospital, that specialist not having signed a contract. Both those instances are , of course, blackmail of the doctors. Let us go further in the test of public morality. Where has it ever been said that there will be an enforcement of a unilateral contract in which the people who are forced to sign it have had no part in the discussions and have no right of appeal? The contract having been signed, it can be changed unilaterally at any time. Where is the morality of this situation? On top of this has come the Government's smokescreen. The Government is trying to hide the fact that it is seeking to bring in nationalised medicine. It wants to take this dialogue away from the interests of the patient to an alleged greedy self-interest of the medical profession. It wants to pretend to the public that the Government is interested in the patient and that the doctor is not. That is demonstrably nonsense. It is an outrage. In point of fact, the Government has denied the patient's basic fundamental rights. It has been clearly demonstrated that it is not a question of the doctors saying: 'We want more money; we want to charge more than the basis of charging'. Senator Peter Baume —They don't do it. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Because, in fact, they do not do it. In fact, the State Ministers have said that there is no necessity for this price control. In fact, most doctors do not charge more; many of them charge less. That is the kind of morality we are getting into. The Government pretends about goals and hides others. Let us not forget the important statement made by the present Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in Adelaide in 1982. He said that the Labor Party: . . . has put aside any primary emphasis on salaried or capitation systems in pragmatic recognition of the prevailing culture and attitudes in this society and in its effort to secure widespread community support for its program. Remember those words 'in its effort to secure widespread community support for its program'. He continued: Private fee-for-service medicine is deeply entrenched in Australian society, strongly defended by the medical profession, and favourably evaluated by the population at large. The next sentence is crucial. It states: That is a fact of life and whatever changes we desire in that system will have to take place gradually and incrementally. The present Minister said that the public does not want the abolition of their freedom under the doctor-patient fee-for-service situation. He said that if we want to change that we have to do it gradually and incrementally. Here we have the whole plan of gradualism, which says to people: 'Look, do not accept a private fee-for-service situation with your local doctor. Get your doctor to bulk bill'. Senator Peter Baume —Fabius Maximus. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes, the honourable senator is quite right-do things gradually and you will get there. The aim is to gradually destroy the doctor- patient fee-for-service relationship-the right of the client to choose and to choose what to pay. Where in any other profession is the client denied the right to choose to pay a particular fee? Where for example, among lawyers is one denied the right to pay a higher fee if the lawer is regarded as being more skilled? Why should not a medical practitioner who has demonstrably much greater skills than another medical practitioner have the right to charge a higher fee if he or she believes it is appropriate? No other profession has this sanction imposed upon it, including the professions which place heavy burdens upon the public purse. What is happening here, as is the case with education, is that there is a levelling down, a move towards mediocrity, that is, that all shall go at the speed of the slowest. We will make everybody charge the same.Whether doctors have higher or lower skills does not matter. Let us all level things out and have equality of outcome. That is the phrase of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, and her colleagues. At the very heart of this situation lies the fact that, unlike any other association or union, the medical profession will not be allowed to arbitrate in the ordinary way. It will have a unilateral decision forced upon it. That is an outrage. I remind the Senate that the Government, day after day, defends the right of all others-as I recall-to withhold their services if they believe they have a genuine agreement. It attacks the medical profession with vitriol for doing so. In my view, the medical profession is a highly responsible body, most of whose members are highly dedicated and perform a very fine service for the community. Of course the medical profession should continue that service because it is a life sustaining service. It has a moral duty to do that. Any denials of service should occur only when arbitration has failed and in extremes. I have always doubted the validity of the principle of the right to withhold services. I believe that is a principle which needs to be looked at very carefully. I rose because I did not want this subject to be viewed as being some kind of a dog fight, as I have said, between doctors who want a lot more money and the Government which wants to protect the patient. It is clearly a fight in which the patients' interests are being sabotaged by this Government. The very principles of the right of private arrangement between doctor and patient are being sabotaged. What the doctors are saying is unarguably right and the public deserves to understand it. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(5.05) —I am rendered almost speechless by that monument to debating by Senator Sir John Carrick. I will come back to that later . Fortunately, I am not quite speechless. I can say that he and Senator Baume opposite have entertained the public of Australia, or the few members who have been listening, to a remarkable set of independent pieces of information which is wrong in the sense that it is selective so that one comes out with the wrong impression. The first error I wish to correct was made by Senator Baume. He claimed that this is the first time ever that the medical profession has been driven to take this sort of industrial action. Perhaps the honourable senator does not know, but for the record I wish to say that this is certainly not the first time that the medical profession has been driven to industrial action. I think we need to be quite clear about that. From 1896 to 1900, four years, there was a strike by hospital- Senator Walters —18 when? Senator CROWLEY —I invite Senator Walters to read the Hansard. From 1896 to 1900 , for four years, there was a strike in South Australia by hospital specialists which closed down the medical school. That would seem to me a fair example of the medical profession's industrial action. Senator Walters asked about dates. Perhaps she should refer herself to the Hobart Hospital when in 1917 a professional action was taken by the medical profession in that State. That dispute lasted for 13 years. It was nothing if not persistent. As a consequence of the arrangements that the Tasmanian doctors came to in Tasmania at that stage , because of the Hobart and Launceston hospital arrangements, the provisions for private practice in public hospitals in Tasmania are much less of a dispute at the moment, precisely because of the settlement that was reached after that piece of industrial action. Thirdly, in 1938 the specialists at the Brisbane and South Coast hospitals threatened to go on strike, but were persuaded to become part time and paid specialists-that situation very much exists at the moment- which is why Queensland's voice in this whole debate is very different. For the record, there has been industrial action by Senator Baume's and my profession in times past. This is not the first time. Those people who are rushing around saying 'Isn't it dreadful? Look what we have been driven to' need to know that they have been driven there a couple of times before. Senator Baume claimed that this case has been one of misrepresentation. I agree with him. I thank him and Senator Sir John Carrick for their contribution to misrepresentation and hope that I will not fall to that kind of line also. Certainly the doctors have been up to some misrepresentation. I hasten to say that I am referring to those doctors who have been spokespersons-so many women are involved-for the Australian Medical Association. They are not really representative of the broad medical profession. I think we should make it quite clear that this sport of doctor bashing is invidious and should be laid aside. We are debating, negotiating and discussing the matter with the spokesmen for the AMA. They are not even representative of all the members in that organisation. They are certainly not representative of all the doctors in the profession. I refer the Senate to an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 2 April . The article elaborates very clearly what has happened in this whole dispute. Again, as another piece of misrepresentation, it would seem-if one listens to Senator Baume-as if the Government has taken on the profession. As Senator Haines pointed out, it was the medical profession, the AMA, in its advertisement in the Age of 14 March headed 'Why the Doctors Are So Angry', which first used the words 'unfettered power without right of appeal to insert any restrictive clauses he chooses'-that is, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett)-'into long- standing agreements'. It was the AMA which hotted up and hyped up the debate and the argument. The advertisement also referred to 'a power assumed by government which could be used to destroy the rights of citizens to make private arrangements with their private doctors to treat them in hospital'. Similarly, a letter published on 3 February from Dr Sutherland and 44 other doctors stated: Doctors who treat private patients in public hospitals are being asked to sign contracts which ultimately will erode their professional independence and limit their incomes. As Geoffrey Barker in the 'State of the Nation' article commented, it was a frank admission that the first concerns of the doctors were status and money. I think it is very important that we examine closely how this debate has become hyped up. Medicare was very successfully introduced on 1 February. Some short while after the opposition from the medical profession emerged which focused around clause 17 of the legislation. The opposition of the doctors focused around the fear they have that the Minister-any Minister; presumably not just the current Labor Minister-will be able to use 'unfettered powers' to alter the way in which doctors practise medicine in this country. That is quite an extraordinary piece of overstatement on the part of the spokesmen for the AMA. Further to that, Minister Blewett, in discussions with the AMA, has been at pains to be reasonable and to recognise the need for continuing discussions on and thought about this matter. I shall come back to that matter later. The claim made by the doctors and Senator Sir John Carrick, that a patient will lose his or her civil rights to choose a doctor and to have the treatment that he or she wants, is one of the furphies that the Liberal Opposition maintains. In fact, most sick people-people are often sick and often frightened when they seek the help of a doctor-have no real or effective rights to make a private choice. The essential choice they make is to go to a general practitioner. If they learn to trust and appreciate that general practitioner they will accept a referral by that general practitioner; they do not choose their own specialist. I allow the exception that in the case of obstetrics care women sometimes will choose their own specialist. Apart from that, those who make their own private choice are those who have doctor contacts or doctor colleagues or are high status people in our community. The majority of Australians rely for referral upon their general practitioner. In him or her they trust; they do not themselves choose a private specialist. In particular they do not do so when they do not know what is wrong with them and have to seek further diagnosis and specialist treatment. It is a nonsense to say that patients have the right to make a choice; they do not. Most people, if they examine this matter reasonably, will appreciate that they do not. They depend on being referred by their medical doctor. In fact, it is the doctors who exercise the right of choice on behalf of the patient, not the patient himself or herself. The argument advanced by Senator Sir John Carrick is very misleading. Another point that interests me in this whole argument is the principal objection of the AMA to the Minister requiring that medical practitioners charge the schedule fee. This seems to be some kind of wicked restriction or limitation on the medical profession. I shall tell the Senate how the schedule fee is arrived at. In fact, an inquiry into this matter has just been completed. It was carried out between January 1984 and March 1984. The inquiry was presided over by the Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Justice McKenzie. Submissions were invited from interested parties. Public hearings were held, and the parties could give verbal information or provide written submissions. After hearing all the evidence, the Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission handed down his judgment. In fact, submissions to this recent inquiry, which was held between January and March 1984, came from the Federal Government, the AMA, the New South Wales Department of Health, and the Australian Association of Surgeons. Lesser submissions were received from the Macquarie Pathology Service and the Department of Community Medicine in Sydney. Thirty-five minor submissions were received. I suppose they were lesser submissions in the sense that they were presented but the authors did not appear before the inquiry to give verbal evidence. The decision was based on the evidence and submissions received from the two largest groups, the AMA and the Federal Government. The umpire in this case was the Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He handed down his decision, but then the AMA said: 'The umpire having made his decision, we do not want to play ball. We object to how the schedule fees are set. We object to the score you have given us'. It says that despite the fact that it made a submission to that inquiry into the schedule fee. In fact, the AMA would have been one of the largest organisations appearing before the inquiry. It was argued this afternoon that there is a problem about how the schedule fee is set because the spokespeople for the AMA cannot agree on the terms of such an inquiry. I do not really see that the Federal Government should be held responsible for the limitations and liabilities of the AMA. It is not a very good argument at all. Having agreed to what a schedule fee is, by making a submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the AMA then says: ' It is not fair; we do not agree with the decision'. It by and large set its own schedule fee a little higher-in fact, quite a big little bit higher; in some cases well over 10 per cent higher-than the schedule fee agreed to. Even then it is unhappy. I have heard it said today also that the AMA is unhappy about being restricted to receiving 85 per cent of the schedule fee. How was this 85 per cent figure arrived at? In the years before the last election-that is, 1981 and 1982-the then shadow spokesman on health matters, Neal Blewett, discussed all of these issues at great length all over the country with various groups with an interest in health matters, and in particular with the AMA. It is not as though all of these matters have been sprung upon the AMA. It was party to all of these discussions and it agreed to the 85 per cent figure. It did so for a number of reasons. The AMA agreed that 15 per cent was a fair estimate of what it cost to run a practice, to chase up bad debts, to write off money forgone, to administer a practice and so on. Further, the AMA argued that the gap between the schedule fee and the insurance rebate was necessary. It supported the concept that there be no insurance to cover the gap. That is what the AMA thought before 1982. I wish that Senator Sir John Carrick had stayed in the chamber to hear me make these remarks because he was at pains to point out that people are about to lose their civil rights because they cannot take out gap insurance. History is a curious thing. Perhaps it selectively dulled Senator Sir John Carrick's memory. Prior to 1972 the Liberal Government and the AMA did not want gap insurance to be made available. In fact, up to the introduction of Medicare, the AMA did not want gap insurance to be made available. It does not want it for reasons very different from those of the Government. The AMA does not want gap insurance because its non-availability allows it to perpetuate the argument it often puts forward about the patient being able to contribute to the patient-doctor relationship. The AMA feels that if gap insurance is not available it will restrain the patients from overusing the system. It will also enable the AMA to continue to advance the argument that the contract between the patient and the doctor is substantiated by the payment of money. The AMA has often argued that it does not want the introduction of gap insurance. The Government is unashamed of the reasons it advanced for setting the figure of 85 per cent. A reasonable agreement was reached with the AMA. The 85 per cent figure provides the Government with a means of constraining the cost of health care in the community. There certainly is an inducement to bulk billing. Both of those objectives form part of the Government's policy: It wishes to constrain the cost of health services in the community Australia-wide. It wishes to encourage bulk billing: Firstly, because it is simpler and fairer to all people concerned; secondly, because it helps to contain costs; thirdly, because it results in money being received on a more regular basis; and, fourthly, as I have often heard argued by doctors, bulk billing frees them from worrying about whether a patient can pay and lets them get on with the business of practising good medicine. Many reasons can be advanced as to why bulk billing is a good thing. Those arguments come from both sides of the debate; that is, from the Federal Government and from the AMA. I find it curious that honourable senators opposite have suddenly changed their tack and advance reasons for not having bulk billing. Perhaps those honourable senators were not party to the debate that took place prior to the introduction of Medicare. Once Medicare was in place, the provisions contained in section 17 became the focus of the profession. The Minister is a reasonable man. If he has a fault at all it is perhaps that he presumed reasonableness on the part of the others. Most doctors quite likely are reasonable people. Many of the members of the AMA to whom I have spoken have been distressed about how the debate has been progressing and about the fact that the stage has been reached where the doctors are about to take some considerable industrial action. That is distressing to most of those doctors. I think most of them are reasonable, but the spokesmen for the AMA certainly do not appear to be reasonable, judging from the way in which they are shaping their argument. Despite Minister Blewett's recognition of the difficulties and his willingness to address the problem, despite the fact that he has accepted in principle the amendment proposed originally by the Australian Democrats and subsequently legislated for in this place, and despite the fact that he has established an inquiry presided over by Dr Penington to address these matters and other matters, the AMA continues to sulk. If it is an industrial organisation, it does not know how to behave as an industrial organisation. It has much to learn. The debate has been quite extraordinary. I read in the Bulletin of 3 April 1984 the following quotation from Dr Peter Duffy who is a radiologist. He is a Sydney ultrasound practitioner and Secretary of the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists. He said: If the Minister has the power to say you've got to work 80 hours a week or 91 1 /2 hours and clean toilets on Saturday night at one minute past nine; if he were to do such ridiculous things, you would have to jump or leave. It's better to sort this out in the beginning. When I see a doctor who is in fact the Secretary of the Royal Australasian College of Radiologists actually going into print with utter rubbish of that sort, suggesting that the Minister should take note of that kind of argument, I think it is very sad. That man is quite ridiculous. Senator Teague —He is illustrating the principle. Senator CROWLEY —If he is illustrating a principle, Senator Teague, I wish he would illustrate it with sense and not with farcical illustrations of doctors perhaps cleaning toilets, although it may not be a bad thing if they did. But to assume that Minister Blewett is about to set regulations of that sort is not illustrative of anything except that the doctor is probably going soft. The next article that quite staggers me is an editorial in the News in South Australia of 29 March 1984, a paper that is not renowned for its radical approach to things. The editorial reads: This newspaper has no hesitation in condemning in the strongest terms the irresponsible mooring gangs dispute which tied up South Australian shipping. That same kind of language is warranted for the doctors and their threat to a national strike from Monday week. Perhaps the Federal Government was crass in aspects of Medicare's introduction. But, on any reasonable assessment of the dispute, it is obvious that the Federal Government has bent over backwards to accommodate the doctors. . . . . For doctors then to take to the streets of Adelaide and other cities and to threaten a national strike is irresponsible and wrong. . . . . The well-paid doctors should immediately do what they will have to do eventually anyway, sit down, stop making threats and start talking commonsense. It is a matter of great shame that the doctors have actually found themselves driven to heights of rhetoric well beyond their own requirements or wishes in this matter. They have got themselves cornered. They have upped their ante and are now in a very difficult, if not foolish, position. Senator McIntosh —Painting themselves into a corner. Senator CROWLEY —That is a very good way of putting it. I simply mention those two quotations because they are illustrative of the level of debate. I commend the News on its editorial. It states very succinctly what should be stated at this stage of the argument. One of the elements that has been overlooked in the whole debate is the consequence of why anybody should interfere and why the Federal Minister should interfere-if that is the right word; I would have thought 'take a long hard look' would be better words-in the arrangements between doctors and hospitals and contracts between them. Senator Sir John Carrick seems to suggest that the debate should be happening in the States. But whose dollars are spent in the State hospitals? They are of course Federal dollars. It would be quite irresponsible-I think wantonly irresponsible-for a Federal Minister not to have considerable regard to how Federal dollars are spent in State institutions. One of the reasons there are more problems at this time than before is that under the previous Government hospital agreements between the Federal and State governments were considerably changed. After the five-year agreements ran out, two States, Tasmania and South Australia, had 10-year agreements and could have proceeded, and in fact did but in slightly varied terms. But as a consequence of that change in arrangements between the Federal and State governments, the States had to find much more of the money themselves. They found there was no reason, and certainly no incentive, for them to continue to provide estimates of costs in the hospitals or the other data that had been required under the previous State-Federal Hospital agreement, so they ceased to do it. Now we have a Federal Government trying to make sensible planning provisions in terms of expenditure in the health area but it does not have the basic data to go on. It needs to collect that basic data. It now requires it from the States which are essentially very pleased to co-operate because good data allows both the Federal and State governments to do better and good planning. Another important piece of data that the Government did not have was any real estimate of how much private work was being done in public institutions. We have had all sorts of Opposition claims that people will not be able to get a bed in a public hospital because the queues will be very long, there will be a huge waiting list and so on. One of the things that happened under the previous Government's arrangements was that public hospital beds were occupied by people having private hospitalisation and private medical treatment. It is important to have some hard data in this area so as to be able to say to people that once we get the private work out of public facilities we will be able to make much better use of them for public patients under the Medicare arrangements. There will be no need to wait so long or to be afraid in anticipation of those changes . But the Government did not have the data. It has tried to acquire some of it. In fact in South Australia, the aforementioned State-I am proud of South Australia for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that its doctors are fairly reasonable people-well over 60 per cent of doctors have already signed contracts. They are currently practising under the sorts of contracts that Minister Blewett was proposing. Why should people object to what they have already agreed to? Senator Sir John Carrick argued that kind of line in another question. I agree with him if his argument refers to doctors who suddenly disagree with terms and conditions to which they have already agreed. Doctors in South Australia were charging the schedule fee in large part for their pathology services so the agreement is very comfortable in South Australia and upsets nobody very much. One of the problems was that in other States there was no understanding, at least not to the same extent there was in South Australia, of how much money was recouped through private work in public hospitals. There was no reliable data on how much was paid back to the funds, usually established by the hospitals to recoup a percentage of that private money to offset the costs of equipment, staff, administrative services, billing and so on. The other question is what happened to the money that was left over. In some hospitals a great amount of it went into research. Considerable grants, staffing arrangements and research were financed with the private money recouped by private practitioners in public facilities. This is a bit of a problem because most of that research was not subject to review or analysis by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In fact, it was a problem that the AMA admits, at least in private, as being a considerable difficulty for it. The AMA admits that that research was being done without the NHMRC or any other body in Australia's evaluating it, judging it to be worth while or even admitting that it was duplicating some other piece of research. This is a spin-off problem from the consequences of private practice unfettered, uncontrolled and unmeasured. There are a number of reasons why the Government most responsibly wanted to understand what was happening with private practice in public institutions. It was not only a matter of cost constraint, it was also a matter of data collection and a more reasonable and responsible allocation of government funds. To suggest, as Senator Sir John Carrick did, that these are State matters and no business of the Federal Government is very misleading. The Federal Government has a proper responsibility to understand what is happening to Federal dollars, even when they are being spent by the States. This whole debate in fact is remarkable in terms of the heat that was engendered when the Federal Government responsibly decided to set clear guidelines. In fact section 17 is no more than clear guidelines. However, I think it is well appreciated that those people to whom the guidelines apply ought to have some ability to take part in the deliberations about the guidelines before they are accepted. The right of appeal or parliamentary scrutiny of those guidelines or regulations I agree and the Government agrees is very reasonable. But to suggest that it is irresponsible of the Federal Government to establish clear guidelines so that people can know where they stand and how they have to adjust according to those guidelines is quite stupid. It is responsible government. I suppose it comes as a terrible shock to people at the moment because we have had seven years of government that seemed more at pains to undo Federal guidelines, to disregard them and let people go willy-nilly. This Government is unashamed about being responsible for how it spends the Federal dollar. It is unashamed about that responsibility for people in the health area in particular. That is the nature of this debate. The other important thing that has been overlooked too-in this debate anyhow-is how much of the taxpayer's dollar which the Federal Government wishes to account for and to be able to account for goes to educating the doctors. How much goes to paying for them all through their university training? How much goes to paying for them as they work in public hospitals? How much goes to assisting their post-graduate training and, in the case of the situation under debate, to providing facilities? The very expensive technological equipment used for radiology and biochemistry and in all areas of pathology services and research are provided by the taxpayer. The doctor has the use of those facilities. He has the use of taxpayer funded staff, et cetera. Some part-the percentage varies from hospital to hospital or State to State-of his or her private earnings over and above the amount that he or she by agreement may keep goes to defray those costs. But the essential and large part of the cost is borne by the public dollar. I think it would be irresponsible of government not to try to account for where those dollars come from in the beginning and how they are allocated both during the provision of services and, in particular, after the provision of services. To establish guidelines to require some clear yardsticks by which we can measure whether or not what we prefer to be happening is happening seems to me to be the outline and the definition of responsible government. I have heard people refer in this debate to the constitutional rights of doctors not to have to suffer civil conscription. I find that proposition very interesting. I have read some part of the judgment handed down in the very interesting case that concerns this matter. This judgment was certainly not unanimous. In fact, two of the judges argued very coherently that civil conscription was to be understood in the way in which most of us would understand that term. It had nothing to do, they argued, with requiring or not requiring that certain fees be set. A very interesting and tortured series of arguments was advanced to suggest that requiring a doctor to set a certain fee would be part of civil conscription. The arguments largely centered around interfering with the doctor's right to contract with a patient. But the patient- doctor relationship in terms of a doctor's ablity to practice his medicine as he will is not interfered with whether he charges $100 or $10. The practice of medicine is quite separate from how it is paid for. Those members of the medical profession who are still objecting are finding it quite difficult to make that distinction. Certainly, two of the judges felt that way in the decision handed down in the civil conscription of doctors case. At the next election a referendum will be put to allow the High Court to give opinions or advice to government. Assuming that that question is agreed to, I think it would be very interesting to see the outcome if such a case as this once again went before the High Court. It may be in fact no more than a matter of how the Bench is weighted at the time. I have trouble appreciating that the law is open to objective assessment and is not coloured by the nature of the people on the Bench. However, I would allow that that is the case and that as much as possible the judges, in weighing up the evidence before them, will make their decision accordingly. If the case were presented to the High Court again the outcome might be different. A different discussion would certainly ensue about the definition of 'civil conscription'. As I said, the judgment might not necessarily be the one that was reached previously. To summarise, I commend the Government for introducing the amendment to section 17 of the health legislation. I appreciate the Government's view that the argument that has proceeded apace to this stage has brought no credit, no satisfaction and no relief of concern for most patients who are hoping that they can see their doctors and receive their medicine and services as ever. The Government recognises that this is one way in which that debate and argument may be laid to rest. Hopefully, the passage of this amendment will achieve that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.35) —We are debating today the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2) which seeks to amend section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. Section 17 was originally amended by the Government to allow for ministerial direction in regard to doctors' contracts. Whether honourable senators opposite like it or not, it is a fact that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has complete jurisdiction over the contracts of doctors working in public hospitals. It was because the doctors objected to this that they have taken the action they have taken. Indeed, as Senator Sir John Carrick has indicated, it was not a penalty against the doctors but against the patients. Patients were to be denied any medical benefit if they were treated by a doctor who had not signed a contract. The Government has now backed down over this issue. It has belatedly brought forward an amendment to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the right of the Minister to alter doctors' contracts without negotiation with doctors. Senator Haines says that she does not understand why this legislation does not overcome all the problems in the dispute. If she does not understand it, I cannot imagine why she has been even talking to the Australian Medical Association. Senator Haines does understand that the composition of this place fluctuates. She does understand that the numbers in this Senate alter considerably through the will of the people. She has said that she is aware of that, but that is unlikely. Indeed, she has said for some considerable time that the Government would not have the numbers in this place and, therefore, she did not see any point in worrying about that. I think the doctors do see some point in worrying about a situation in which the Parliament as a whole would have the right, without negotiation with them, to say what sort of contract should be signed by them in State public hospitals. It is absolutely ridiculous that the Parliament should have any say in such a matter. The Parliament does not have any say in regard to the contracts of lawyers, engineers or anyone else. It does not have any say about exactly what they should get or the agreements under which they should work. It is really quite ridiculous to think that doctors would agree to this sort of thing. As has been indicated already, Senator Peter Baume brought forward a similar measure last September when the problem first arose. Senator Peter Baume —Pronounce it right, Senator. Senator WALTERS —I notice that Senator Baume is irritated when Senator Crowley does not get it right. However, Senator Grimes had quite a lot to say at that time. He said: 'Well, we would have some interesting situations in hospitals if the guidelines were approved by State Ministers and the Federal Minister and someone for some reason or other moved for the disallowance in this place and then 15 sitting days later after the contracts had been drawn up the guidelines were disapproved'. Evidently he now does not mind that interesting situation developing because he is putting to us now that we allow that interesting situation to develop. He went on to say, as Senator Baume has indicated, that he thought that the whole thing was an unnecessary impediment. He now does not mind the unnecessary impediment or the interesting situation developing. We find that Senator Grimes is rather fluid, too, in the things he agrees with. One moment an assets test is proposed on pensions and the next moment we find that that is all a great mistake. Mr Hawke told Senator Grimes to back off and he did so. So Senator Grimes is used to this sort of thing. If such a proposal had been put forward in 1978 Senator Cavanagh, who was then a member of this place, would never have allowed Caucus to come to such a decision. I remind honourable senators opposite that in 1978 when bad drafts- manship at that time led the Minister in our Government to make certain directions-those directions were to be laid on the table, but there was no room for a disallowance-Senator Cavanagh said: The thing of which I complain- he had earlier complained bitterly about draftsmanship- is contained in section 4 of the Act, which says that a Minister may make a declaration under section 4B, which has certain objects as set out in the legislation. The Act then sets out the procedure for presentation to the Parliament, and that is the end of it; there is no need for the Parliament to discuss it. He went on to say how terribly undemocratic that sort of thing was. Senator Cavanagh retired from this place some time ago and the Government is the worse for it. The Minister for Health said in the other place that doctors were concerned that the schedule might be frozen. He gave a personal guarantee that that would not be done. One has only to look at the history of promises made by the Minister for Health and other Ministers to see what becomes of government promises. There is no guarantee that the present Government will do a thing it says it will do. Senator Grimes —It was your Government that froze the fees. Senator WALTERS —I shall come to that matter shortly. Let us look at the Government's record on doctor bashing. Senator Crowley, Senator Grimes, Senator Tate, Dr Blewett and Mr Hawke have all had a wonderful time doctor bashing. Let us examine what Senator Grimes said in November last year: . . . they will make a lot of noise but they will interrupt that noise occasionally by putting their snouts in the trough of public funding. What a statement to come from a Minister of the Crown. What an appalling example of the sort of Minister of the Crown put up by the present Government. What appalling words. Senator Tate said that the doctors in Hobart were ripping off the system. There are so many descriptions of what members in the other place and the Government think about doctors that I shall not take up further time quoting them. Perhaps I should cite the latest public opinion poll published by the Bulletin of the professions considered to be tops in ethics. Senator Baume referred to this. The top mark went to the doctors, with a figure of 64 per cent public approval. Over the years in which many Labor members, and Senator Grimes in particular, have been doctor bashing, the public's approval of doctors rose from 62 per cent to 63 per cent and it is now 64 per cent. What is the position of politicians in that poll? I am ashamed to say that as we politicians have among our ranks people such as Senator Grimes, Dr Blewett and Senator Tate, the public 's opinion of politicians is way down the list. It does not seem to matter how much political doctor bashing goes on, the public opinion of doctors continues to rise. Ours, I am ashamed to say, is down to 19 per cent. That is an absolute disgrace. However, it does not matter what Senator Grimes does, public opinion of doctors continues to rise. Senator Crowley has just left the profession of which the public had a decent opinion and has now entered a profession whose standing with the public is, I am afraid, very low. Let us examine the sorts of doctors the Government is bashing. Last Thursday or Friday night, in Hobart, 150 doctors attended a meeting-not bad for Hobart-and several motions were passed. One motion read: That this meeting rejects the power given to the Minister by Section 17; advises doctors not to sign contracts- That is a reference to the contracts put forward by the Government. The motion concluded by stating that the meeting also supported the national stand by the AMA. This was not an AMA meeting. They were 150 doctors from all around Hobart. Senator Grimes —Oh! Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes, who is now laughing, must admit that a gathering of 150 doctors in Hobart is not a bad number. The meeting noted: That no intermediate patient has ever been charged in excess of the schedule fee and that this has been written into the intermediate patients agreement since its inception in 1976. The meeting noted that the schedule fee for intermediate patients had never been exceeded. Senator Grimes —It is part of their contract. Senator WALTERS —It is not part of their contract. Senator Grimes —It is a contract with the Government. Senator WALTERS —It is not, and if Senator Grimes does not understand that he should not be the spokesman on health in this place. It is not in their contract at all. It is a voluntary agreement that they have decided on themselves. Senator Grimes —That they have signed. Senator WALTERS —They have not signed it at all. If you do not understand that, I am most surprised. However, the doctors are completely behind the national move and have given it their full support. The doctors in Hobart do not need to take any particular stand on this nor do the doctors in Queensland. Tasmania and Queensland are the only two States which do not have Labor Governments and where Dr Blewett has not agreed with the State governments to inflict these contracts on doctors. Let us examine why the Government is taking such a stand against the doctors. All speakers on this side of the chamber have queried the reason. It can be for no other reason than nationalisation. Senator Grimes —Huh! Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes in his inimitable way says: 'Huh, nationalisation!' There is no doubt that the Government is seeking nationalisation through the back door. Why the back door? Because constitutionally it cannot do so otherwise. Let us look at a number of quotations that will make clear the Government's reasons for taking such a course. On 26 February 1984, when the dispute had only just begun and both sides were just having a few terse words, with the AMA asking Dr Blewett to review the matter, the Minister for Health said that he could not understand the surgeons. He said: Our proposals only affect the specialists of radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Therefore, he does not understand the surgeons at all. He continued: There are no proposals at all relating to the surgeons, who are a separate area of medical specialty. That is what he said in February in a news release. But what did he say to the Doctors Reform Society in August last year? He certainly did not say what he said in February. He said to the Doctors Reform Society: One area of particular concern to the Government in the public hospital sphere is the right to private practice of sessional medical staff, particularly in the diagnostic service area . . . . . . . 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. In February he said he did not understand the surgeons becoming concerned because there were no proposals relating to them as they were in a separate area of medical specialty. At the Doctors Reform Society meeting he had said that he had the intention to move more broadly in due course. He wonders why the doctors do not trust him. There is no way anyone would trust him when he makes those sorts of comments. So at the moment we have proof that he does intend to move more broadly and not just against the diagnosticians. We also know that Mr Hawke and Dr Blewett have both said that bulk billing is the answer. They have indeed, in their advertising, stressed to the patients: 'Go and seek out a doctor who bulk bills'. What happens when a doctor bulk bills? That means the whole of his income is paid to him by the Government. To me, and I am sure to anyone else, that means that the doctor is a public servant and, because he is paid entirely by the Government, he is nationalised. Then we have the hospitals. Of course we have no suggestion at all that should anything happen private hospitals will be nationalised in any way. Senator Grimes would be laughing at the thought of that . Again Dr Blewett in his speech to the Doctors Reform Society said: The Commonwealth is proceeding to collate information provided by the States as a basis to determine the future direction of activities to regulate rights of private practice. . . . . In the private hospital sector the Government is moving to give greater control over subsidies to State Governments. This should also allow a greater degree of integration of hospital services. Dr Deeble goes into it a little more clearly-I am quoting from the Sun-Herald newspaper of 29 January this year-when he says: Putting private hospitals into three classes is a very first step towards putting private hospitals into the public system. This is a very big step, but it is a long-term aim. I have dealt with the doctors and the hospitals. Let us have a look at the private funds, because they have indeed become a State monopoly as regards doctors' fees. Nowhere at all are patients permitted to insure themselves for their doctors' fees. They have got to be paid by the Government. The private funds have lost all right to insure for doctors' fees. So the medical fees section of the private funds have indeed become a State monopoly. They have been nationalised in the area of doctors' fees. We have only hospitals left. According to Dr Blewett and Dr Deeble putting private hospitals into three classes is the very first step towards putting private hospitals into the public system; this is a very big step, but it is a long term aim. So do not tell me that the aim of this Government is not to nationalise the whole health area. Indeed, it is well on the way. But why else would the doctors not trust Dr Blewett? Let me just give a few examples of things that he said in his second reading speech on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill on 6 September last year . He said: Australian residents will be covered automatically and the 1 per cent payment will be made along with, but separately identified from, the tax instalments in the weekly or fortnightly pay packet. Mr Acting Deputy President, can you tell me whether your pay packet has your one per cent separately identified from your other tax instalments? No one throughout the whole of Australia to whom I have spoken can. That quotation was from the second reading speech of Dr Blewett. This Government promised that the one per cent would be identified separately in the tax instalments of people's pay packets. That has not occurred. I wonder why it has not occurred. I wonder whether it is because Mr Hawke said that nine out of 10 people would be better off under this system. The Government does not really want to label for the people every week that they are paying more and that every time they go to the doctor and pay the extra 15 per cent of the doctor's fee they are paying more and more. At the moment we have the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals being conducted. We are being told that at the end of that the Government will agree to whatever the recommendations are and that the doctors should do likewise, but that in the meantime they should abide by anything Dr Blewett cares to put forward, indeed that we should make sure that the doctors sign the contracts before that inquiry makes its recommendations. If only the Government would treat the rest of its industrial relations in the same way we would see what the public of Australia thinks about its methods, but it does not. It has two systems, one for the unions and one for the doctors. The one for the unions does not even suggest-indeed at the National Economic Summit Conference it was not even considered because it was thought to be not negotiatable and the doctors were told so-that they should abide by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision. We were told that the unions would not even consider abiding by the Arbitration Commission's decision when it comes down with wage rates. The unions say that they are not negotiable and they will not consider them. This Government says the doctors should abide by its inquiry. Indeed the doctors are not having a bar of it. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would have heard, and so would the rest of Australia, all the accusations regarding fraud and over-servicing. This has been going on for some time. The professor of Statistics at the School of Economic and Financial Studies at Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales, thinks the whole thing has been a cook-up in the Department of Health. For those officers who are now laughing beside the Minister, I will read what he said. The article is called 'Medifraud', and states: . . . Dr Neal Blewett, the Federal Minister of Health, states- That is in the Medical Journal of Australia-- . . . January 21 . . . that the estimates of $100 million for the magnitude of medical fraud and overservicing for 1980-81 and $120 million for 1981-82 are based on rigorous methods which are outlined in his department's submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts. As a statistician with an interest in medical statistics, I have examined this submission . . . I have also studied a statistical review by E. S. Knight of the Commonwealth Department of Health's fraud and overservicing detection system, . . . and a further statement by Dr Blewett on medical fraud and overservicing made in Parliament on November 15, 1983. In these reports, it is claimed that the amount of excess doctors' fees in 1982 was of the order of $100 million, broken down into one-third legitimate, one- third fraud and one-third overservicing. I can say with conviction that there is no statistical or logical basis either for the amount quoted or for the breakdown into categories. The only basis for these figures is the 'expert opinion' of members of the Department of Health, ' supported' by a statistical calculation that is irrelevant and misleading. I have no disagreement with the E. S. Knight report which, if anything, adds weight to this conclusion. As a scientist- he is not a medical doctor, but a scientist- I object most strongly to public policies being formulated on the basis of improper studies. There are sound procedures, well known to biostatisticians and epidemiologists, for estimating the extent and nature of fraud and overservicing in the medical profession. The procedures involve intelligent . . . study design , unbiased statistical sampling from the study population, and careful data management, data analysis and reporting, guided of course by expert opinion. There is no evidence that these procedures have been carried out. That is signed by Don McNeil, PhD, Professor of Statistics at the School of Economic and Financial Studies, Macquarie University. As I have said, the doctor bashing by the Department of Health and the Government has surpassed anything we have previously seen in this country. I believe that that action by people who have cooked the figures is completely irresponsible and they have a lot to answer for. I sincerely hope that the Government gives up this doctor bashing and sees the wisdom of abiding by the private member's Bill put by Senator Baume and accepts Senator Baume's amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time, as follows: Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should take immediate steps to resolve the dispute between the Minister for Health and the doctors by accepting the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 introduced into the Senate by Senator Baume on 28 March 1984 . Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(6.03) —Throughout the whole afternoon Opposition senators have been seeking to find a remedy to the offence in Australia's Medicare legislation whereby the Government has the unilateral power to determine contracts for doctors serviced in public hospitals. We are not debating Medicare itself. That matter was determined last year in the acrimonious debates about so many matters of principle that were involved in the socialising of health care in Australia. The declared positions of the Labor Government and of the Opposition, which takes a liberal approach to this matter, are very clear and more and more the public is becoming aware of the enormously contrasting approaches that Labor and the Opposition take to the organisation of health care in Australia. No, that is not what the current debate is about. Rather, it is about one aspect of the health insurance legislation that has come to be in focus in every newspaper over all of the weeks that the debate has ensued and which is currently of such great concern to the Australian public because of the impending lockout of doctors by the Government through unilaterally declaring contracts which are unacceptable to the medical profession. We hear day by day of a new turn in the discussions that stop and start between the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Australian Medical Association, and I am sure that the Opposition and the public hope that there will be a turn in that discussion that will stop this impending dislocation of health services in Australia. The remedy to the problem is in the legislation before us. We are considering section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. The Opposition's case is that this whole section is deficient because it allows the contract of service for doctors in public hospitals to be determined solely by the government of the day, by the Minister for Health. That needs to be amended so that, as with every other contract of employment, every other contract for service provided by a profession, there is give and take, mutual discussion, consultation, negotiation and, if there is disagreement in that process, arbitration so that the contract is not thrust by one party on to the other but is something which is reasonably and sensibly derived so that it can be accepted by both parties to the contract. Because the contract is unilaterally declarable by the Minister for Health, it is offensive to the entire medical profession. Can the Senate and the public be sympathetic to that profession? If the doctors go ahead and sign the contracts handed to them, they are agreeing to the basis on which that contract is offered; that is, they have no right in principle to disagree with the contract. It is determined by the Minister for Health in Canberra, in a centralist, autocratic way. Are they, by signing that contract, to accept that process? No, they are not. The Opposition agrees that this legislation needs much more drastic amendment than is contemplated by the Government. The hold on the medical profession is all the more invidious because the patients, the consuming public of Australia, are being held in this stranglehold that the Government is wanting to place on the medical profession. The Government is saying: 'Patients will not be able to gain any Medicare benefit, any subsidy on the cost of the medical process, if you doctors do not sign your contracts. If you do not sign the contracts that we are unilaterally putting before you you will be denying your patients any of the Medicare benefits that, in the past, accrued through health insurance schemes in all the ways that health costs were dealt with'. So the doctor is caught in that stranglehold, that dilemma. Will he deny the patient the Medicare benefit by conceding to this unilaterally determined contract of which he has not had any part or will he protest by saying the principle of the contract's formulation is wrong and therefore he cannot sign the contract? That is what section 17 is about. In effect, the Government has found in the past several weeks that the public and the medical profession have such legitimacy and public suasion in their claim that it must give way a bit in the legislation. The Government is therefore putting up a squib of a small amendment that goes some distance towards what the medical profession and the Opposition are seeking. It now says: 'Although we, as the Government of Australia, will agree that these contracts being put before all medical practitioners are being unilaterally determined by us, it is all right because we will have this amendment to the legislation which will allow the Parliament to disapprove them if they are odious'. The Australian Democrats put up this proposal a few weeks ago as if it was a brand new initiative, a startling breakthrough that would save the nation from all of the calamities that the Government was leading the medical profession into. But it is not an initiative of the Democrats; it started with the Liberal-National Party Opposition when, in the main debate on Medicare last September, we put forward such a disallowance procedure for incorporation into the Health Insurance Act. Senator Grimes —Now you say it is a squib. Senator TEAGUE —We describe it as a squib now because, although it is right and should be supported, we need to go much further and allow the medical profession to be directly involved in the discussions and negotiations on the contracts in the first place. Is it sufficient for the Government and the Democrats now to say: 'Although it is a unilateral contract you have the remedy of Parliament disallowing it? Is that an answer to any area of employment in Australia where a party is locked out from taking any part in negotiating the contract? This contract has been determined by one party. We appeal to honourable senators here today and to the public by asking: Is there any area of employment in Australia in which a party to a contract of employment has determined that only one side can conclude the contract? Would only one party determine the definition of the property at issue, the price and arrangements for the purchase of a house? There are two parties to any contract and both parties need to agree to its terms. Similarly, in any contract of employment there is an employer and an employee. The contract of their relationship should be determined by both parties. The issue which is currently being taken up by the medical profession and which is fully supported by the Opposition is that that principle is not being recognised by the Government nor by the Democrats in this legislation. So, we rightly call this late Government amendment to legislation, which it introduced only a few months ago, a squib because it has the ability only to provide for parliamentary disallowance. It does not take account of the principle that the medical profession should be directly involved in the determinations of its contracts. This Bill fails to take away the unilateral coercion which is directly allowed by the legislation even in this squib-like amended way. The Government's defence is: 'We are reasonable. We will not hurt the medical profession. Moreover, there are certain reasons for restraint. After all, the State governments have an interest in this matter. They would not want the Federal Government to be unreasonable'. The Government has also put up the case that if the medical practitioners were so offended by the unilaterally determined contracts they would go off and practice surgery and other procedures in private hospitals. That would denude the public hospitals of all their services and the Government would not have the ability to bring in doctors from overseas. The Government is putting forward lame excuses and the feint that it is reasonable after all. It says: 'We are unilaterally determining the contracts but surely you can trust us . We are the elected Government. The people trust us. The people even think that our Prime Minister is doing a reasonably good job; they give him a high public polling rate'. In legislation before the Parliament we should not be put off by reassurances about the present situation; we should look hard and coldly at the powers that are directly conferred by the legislation. That power gives a Federal Minister for Health unilateral coercion in determining all the contracts in public hospitals for medical practitioners. What is the history of the negotiations that have led to the present impasse between the Federal Government and the medical profession? What has made medical practitioners leave their hospitals, surgeries and private rooms to march in the streets and even talk about industrial action that would deny their services in situations other than emergencies? After the Medicare legislation became law in the last quarter of last year an initial draft was put forward by the Minister for Health of the guidelines for the determination of the contracts. Those guidelines were discussed by the Minister and representatives of the Australian Medical Association. Offence was taken to the prescriptions in that first draft. A second draft of guidelines was put forward which, nevertheless, determined ceilings for the amounts that both salaried doctors in public hospitals and private visiting practitioners might earn. I must say as a Liberal senator that, on the face of it, I do not see any offence in there being such guidelines or contracts. I do not see any offence in the arena of possibilities that have been widely discussed in public. Certainly they were available to us. There was no secret about the various proposed guidelines along the way. The public is concerned that there be cost limitations in any public scheme and the public and the Parliament are concerned that there be such guidelines and contracts. What is missing in all of this is that, in the first and second drafts, there was no ability for the medical profession to play an equal part in the determination of those contracts. They were not seriously regarded by the Minister. In this way there was offence to every established practice of determining contracts for providing services in Australia. In no other area of employment and in no other profession has there been such unilateral coercion. On 11 January a third step was taken in addition to the second draft. The Minister said: 'The AMA and I cannot agree. Although I have the power to coerce you there will be trouble probably if I try to do that'. So on 11 January the Minister said: 'We will set up an independent inquiry into all these matters. It will be headed by Professor Penington, the dean of the medicine faculty at the University of Melbourne'. That was fine. In the meantime with whatever wisdom the Penington Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals may bring down in the months ahead this legislation is still offensive, even with the squib of an amendment which the Government is putting forward to provide for parliamentary disallowance. As this third step in the negotiations proceeded into January, the medical profession became more alarmed and started to distrust the Federal Minister and the Federal Government. Doctors were also reminded that the Federal Minister, Dr Blewett, had, in earlier statements, said that he was a fabian in his revolutionary approaches to reorganising the medical profession. There was such public support for a fee for service medical system in Australia that he, a Labor Minister, the Labor Government and the Labor movement generally felt they should not take on too quickly the abolition of the fee for service approach and a private medical system in Australia but move slowly and gradually towards the complete socialisation of the medical profession in Australia. Thus in January the medical profession's trust in the Federal Minister and the Federal Government had evaporated and it saw substance in those fears about the real intentions, the hidden agenda and the goals of this Government. It does not want to see the deterioration of medical services in Australia that inevitably would follow a wholesale socialisation of health arrangements. Therefore, the profession said that it would dig its heels in on this matter and that it would not be tempted just by a squib that would allow parliamentary disallowance. It said that like every other profession in Australia it wanted to be involved in the determining of that contract that is to bind its members' term of service in public hospitals. In that principle I support the medical profession. I appeal to Ministers on the other side of the chamber not to put up in debate the argument that the guidelines are reasonable after all, and that such guidelines and contracts only allow public accountability, reasonableness and fairness, because I would agree with all that. All I am saying is that this principle has still escaped the Government and the Australian Democrats in this debate: It is a matter of there not being unilateral coercion of the medical profession by unilaterally determined contracts. What reasons have been put forward by the Labor Government for its unilateral determination of contracts? First, it has said that it will spend $2,000 billion in reimbursing the costs of medical and hospital treatments and that because it is providing the money it knows all about it and can unilaterally determine the best way to spend it and to ensure that it does not go beyond a reasonable ceiling. As Senator Peter Baume has already pointed out, there is not an open-ended ceiling on any cost to any one medical practitioner for any one item of health procedure. There is a schedule fee with regard to every item. Medicare arrangements allow only 85 per cent of that schedule fee to be paid in respect of any item, so there is not an open-ended ceiling. A second reason given by the Government was that an expert inquiry that looked into the efficiency and administration of hospitals directly recommended that it do this. That is the gloss the Government puts on the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals which the former Liberal Government instituted, and rightly so. We welcome the generality of the conclusions of the Jamison Inquiry. But it is not the case that Jamison recommended exactly what the Government is doing. In the second reading speech last Friday, recommendations 109, 111, 112 and 113 of that Inquiry's report were quoted. These four recommendations all bear upon this matter, but not one of them or any other finding of the Jamison Inquiry recommended the abolition of private practice in public hospitals. On page 952 of Hansard, the Minister is reported as saying: This is why it is nonsense for the AMA and the Opposition to object to the Commonwealth Government having a say in the conditions under which doctors are employed in public hospitals. . . . . As I have already made clear, this Government has no intention of abolishing rights of private practice arrangements in public hospitals, despite the recommendation of the Jamison inquiry. The Minister is implying that Jamison recommended the abolition of private practice. That is not what the Jamison Inquiry found. There is no talk of abolition at all, but rather-- Senator Grimes —Read recommendation 111. Senator TEAGUE —I will read it. It reads: Steps be taken to phase out over a period of years the right of private practice for full time salaried specialists. Senator Grimes —What is wrong with that? We are not even doing that. Senator TEAGUE —But the predominance of medical practitioners treating private patients in public hospitals are visiting private medical practitioners. The gloss is made in the same way Senator Grimes has made it just now in the interjection, that this whole matter is about salaried doctors already on the public payroll in the public hospitals. But it is not; it is only partly about them. Even the first and second drafts of the guidelines say reasonably that the private patients of full time salaried officers should allow payments not exceeding 25 per cent in excess of the already determined salary of those public employees. That may be reasonable. I am not arguing about the particularity of it, but I am arguing with the Government that twists into the words of the so- called expert inquiry, the Jamison Inquiry, conclusions which are not there. I see this and I could instance it in other ways. The expert inquiry certainly recommended that there be discussion towards such guidelines and contracts. It did not recommend abolition and it did not recommend unilateral coercion by a government without the medical profession being involved in the determination of these contracts. A third reason that the Government put forward is that the AMA has been unreasonable. The Government says: 'We have tried over all these months to discuss this matter with the AMA but we have unilaterally to coerce the AMA now because it is unreasonable'. What a limp set of examples are put forward in the Minister's speech. The one matter to which the AMA has been resolutely opposed is its total exclusion from the process of determining the contracts. The more it understood that that principle was totally transgressed by current legislation, the more it dug in its heels. But on all the details, the Association was entirely co-operative and allowed discussion. It heard the first draft and moved to the second draft. It agreed to participate in the Penington Inquiry. Even today, the AMA is in consultations to try to find an answer to this impasse. The one principle in this debate which is constantly a matter of difficulty is that the Federal Government will not allow a departure from the unilateral coercion that it has arrogantly put upon itself to determine these contracts. In this matter I, as a Liberal senator, and the Opposition concur with the medical profession as we would with any other profession involved in the determining of the contracts for employment or for services. Other reasons the Government gives for this unilateral determination of contracts muddy the arguments and blur the distinctions by bringing in particularities about money and by implying some kind of greedy, money grubbing medical profession which plays to the basest jealousy instincts in any people, not only Australians. I detest such appeals, such blurrings, and believe that it is not in any way constructive for the Government to put such arguments forward. The Government is blackmailing the medical profession by this stranglehold of saying: 'Your patients will be denied Medicare payments if you do not sign these contracts'. I believe the public should be entirely sympathetic to the doctors for not signing these contracts because the signing of them would mean accepting that a Federal Minister remote in Canberra could arrogantly and unilaterally coerce doctors to accept contracts without their having any say in the terms of those contracts. Whilst we look to the positive and constructive outcomes of the Penington Inquiry, the chance is before us now by supporting the Opposition amendment to win that matter of principle here and now in the Senate. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator TEAGUE —For most of the afternoon the Senate has tried to press upon the Government that the present dispute with the medical profession which it has brought upon itself has a remedy, and that remedy is to allow the medical profession to be involved in the process of determining the contracts that will guide its service to the public in public hospitals. In the determination of the contracts we need to go much further than the squib of the amendment that the Government has before the Senate which would allow only parliamentary scrutiny of those contracts. The Government must go further and allow a genuine departure from its arrogance to provide unilateral coercion of contracts upon the medical profession. The public of Australia is directly concerned today, as it was yesterday and throughout the last few weeks, about the possibility of the dislocation of health services in the country. The surest remedy of that possibility is to go much further than this small amendment to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act and genuinely to allow the medical profession of Australia to play its full part , along with the Federal Government, the State governments and public hospitals as institutions, in the determination of those contracts. Let us not hear in the Senate distractions and statements that the public can trust the Government to be fair or reasonable. We are not assured by such appeals in the present circumstance. What we want is to see that in section 17 of the Health Insurance Act there is a direct ability for the medical profession, the Australian Medical Association, like every other employee or person who provides a service in the country, to take its full part properly in the determination of the contracts under which it is to work in public hospitals. If the Government takes the position that has been put forward by Senator Baume and all the rest of us from the Opposition who have spoken today, we will go much further than this small squib to a genuine amendment of section 17 which will allow this impasse with the medical profession which the Government has brought upon itself to be resolved so that the public will not suffer the consequences of any lockout as a result of these unilaterally declared contracts by the Government. I conclude by urging Senator Grimes and other Ministers of this Government to give proper ear to the medical profession of Australia. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.03) —One may be surprised to realise that what we are debating in the Senate-as Senator Teague says, we debated it for hours this afternoon-is a Bill called the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1984 (No. 2). The debate has ranged far and wide, as do all health debates in this place. I have some knowledge of them because I believe I have taken part in every debate in this chamber on a health Bill or a health insurance Bill since 1974. Everyone in this chamber seems to be an expert on health. Certainly everyone is an expert on health insurance. Every time we have a Bill to amend the health insurance or health legislation in this country, no matter how small the amendment is, we have a full debate on health insurance and health care delivery generally. That debate always brings forward the same phrases and rhetoric from members of the Opposition. I listed just a few of them this afternoon. We were told that the Bill represents the nationalisation, either directly or indirectly, of the health industry in this country. Senator Walters called it back door nationalisation. Senator Teague talked about socialising the medical profession. If it were just a case of socialising the profession I would not mind too much, but he talked about coercion and all those terrible things that are happening to the medical profession in this country. Senator Baume even talked about elements of the debate. He was the first speaker after the second reading speech, which was a very mild speech. He talked about the class hatred that honourable senators on this side of the chamber have for the medical profession. He even described the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, as being a member of the socialist Left. I can tell honourable senators that that is news not only to Dr Blewett but also to the socialist Left. We heard about a hidden agenda which would somehow, by this back door method, nationalise the health industry in this country. We heard stories of how the Government was, by this legislation, making bulk billing compulsory and so on. I have been listening to that stuff for years. We have all been listening to that stuff for years. I wish people would find some new words to use to describe what is going on. Senator Baume started off by saying that the amendment in this legislation, which I will actually come to in a minute, was an example of political expediency by the Government. He said that it was not the Government's amendment or Senator Haines's amendment; it was his amendment; it was the amendment that he moved when this legislation was before the chamber, I think, last December. Senator Teague —September. Senator GRIMES —Perhaps it was September. He said that in the different circumstances which face us and the health consumers in this country the Government would have been guilty of a terrible crime of political expediency in accepting Senator Haines's suggestion which he claimed for his own. Before I deal with that point I indicate that if we want an example of political expediency in the health debates which have taken place in this Parliament, let us look back to 1975 when Senator Baume, who was usually the lead speaker on the other side, opposed vigorously the imposition of a levy to fund health insurance in this country. Sir John Kerr used that legislation as a reason for a double dissolution. When the legislation came back two months later the Parliament passed a Bill to put down a levy to pay for health insurance in this country. If honourable senators want to look at political expediency, I invite them to look at that. To top that off, Senator Baume spent a quarter of an hour saying that it was not Senator Haines's amendment or the Government's amendment; it was his amendment; he moved it, as Senator Teague told me, last September. Senator Teague said that the Government was moving a damp squib of an amendment . He said that the Opposition and the medical profession oppose it; it is an awful amendment. To give one further example of the sort of nonsense that goes on in this place, Senator Walters, that great defender of the medical profession in general-I am usually a defender of the medical profession-but the medical profession of Tasmania in particular, said it was outrageous that the Government should want to ask doctors who have intermediate patients, as she described them , in hospital to charge the schedule fee. She said that was an outrageous proposition. When I said to her that such a situation already exists in Tasmania she said that I was wrong and that I did not know about this. I have before me an agreement between the Board of Management of the Royal Hobart Hospital, in legal terms otherwise known as the Board, and the medical practitioner whose name is in the schedule, the medical practitioner who works at the Royal Hobart Hospital, known in this agreement as the doctor. Clause 7 of the document says: The Board will: (a) in the name of the Doctor charge the intermediate patients of the Doctors fees for medical, pathological, radiological and other diagnostic services performed by him/her according to the specified fee as prescribed from time to time in Schedule 1 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 . . . The doctors signed that document to ensure that the fee charged was the schedule fee. The document was signed on 7 October 1983, just a few months ago. Senator Walters said that the doctors did not sign any such document. It is a voluntary agreement. The document was signed by four members of the medical profession elected by the medical profession to sign it. The doctors who agree with it and those who work in the Royal Hobart Hospital and every other public hospital in Tasmania are listed on the back of the schedule, although I point out that I do not have a copy of it here deliberately. The doctors in Tasmania signed the document, thereby agreeing that only the schedule fee would be charged by them. We are told that it was signed by those four doctors on their behalf and on behalf of every doctor in the State. We are told that members on this side of the Parliament indulge in doctor bashing, that we are terrible people, that we do not like the medical profession , that we are not representative of the medical profession, and that the medical profession does not like us. I make one point in that regard: Since I have been a member of this Parliament-I think I have it right because I thought about it while having my evening meal-11 medical practitioners have been members of this Parliament. There is Dr Jenkins, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dr Charlesworth who is currently the honourable member for Perth, Dr Everingham, the honourable member for Capricornia, Dr Klugman, the honourable member for Prospect, Senator Crowley-I notice that she was called Senator Growley by Senator Walters- and me. In recent years other medical practitioners who have been members of this Parliament have been Dr Cass, the honourable member for Maribyrnong in Victoria, and Dr Gunn, the honourable member for Kingston in South Australia. That makes a total of eight medical practitioners. There have been three other doctors in the Parliament. Senator Baume has been a member of Parliament for as long as I have. All honourable members will remember Senator Sheil. He was here for a few years too. He was the shortest serving Cabinet Minister in this country. Dr Richardson was a member of the other place. He lasted only a couple of years. He then left the Liberal Party and joined the Workers Party or the Progress Party. Eight doctors have come from this side. With the exception of Senator Baume, not many of those from the other side were in the parliament for very long. We on this side of the Parliament are not doctor bashers. Anyone who has the cheek to criticise any aspect of the medical profession in this place is accused by Senator Walters, Senator Sir John Carrick and God knows who else aroung the place of being doctor bashers. What we want is a fair system of health insurance in this country. What we want eventually is a fair system of the delivery of health services in this country. All afternoon a great deal of nonsense has been spoken in the debate. I suppose as the Minister replying to the debate I should mention some of the matters that have been raised, even though they have little relevance to the Bill before the House-a Bill that I point out to honourable senators seeks to make only a few amendments. Firstly, it seeks to amend section 17 by inserting a new sub-section for the purpose of enabling the Minister, if he is satisfied that the laws of a State or Territory, or agreements or arrangements entered into under such laws, are such as will regulate the rendering of a prescribed professional service in a manner consistent with the guidelines, to sign an instrument exempting a medical practitioner from the requirement to enter into an agreement of the kind referred to. In other words, doctors in those States or Territories do not have to sign anything. They have to come to an agreement with the State Government or the Territory Government. That is what the amendment is about. It was on that point that Senator Teague demonstrated his profound ignorance. The Federal Minister is not a party to such contract. He determines the conditions under which Medicare benefits are paid and he comes to an agreement with the States-it is not a two-party agreement-about what shall be in those contracts. He lays down a set of guidelines, and no one in this country would think that those guidelines were unreasonable. The second amendment seeks to insert new sub-sections (5), (6), (7) and (8) at the end of section 17. These provisions will enable the guidelines that have been made by the Minister under section 17 and any guidelines that the Minister makes in the future to be disallowed by the Parliament in the same way as a statutory rule may be disallowed. It was in this regard that Senator Walters got herself into diabolical trouble. Senator Walters says it is a cheek to require the doctors to have their regulations or guidelines scrutinised by this Parliament because the people of this country might actually change the complexion of the Parliament. It is her view that the doctors should not be dictated to by the elected representatives of the people of this country, that the doctors are above that. She then said-I urge people to read in Hansard what she said-that when Senator Cavanagh was a member of this Parliament he did not allow that sort of attitude to prevail because Senator Cavanagh used to insist that the Parliament express its views on regulations that Ministers laid down. I urge people to read in Hansard the speech of Senator Walters and to note her logic and the circular argument that she advanced this afternoon. It was extraordinary. She told us what a great fellow Jimmy Cavanagh was. We all agree that he was. She told us that he used to insist that Ministers did not have the right to lay down regulations or guidelines without Parliament having an opportunity to express its view. The proposed amendments provide-pro tem perhaps, depending on the Penington report-for the Parliament, and the Senate in particular, to have those powers. Senator Walters got lost somewhere in her argument. She then said that doctors are really frightened that this Parliament or the Labor Government will suddenly want to freeze the schedule fee. The Government has given a public guarantee to the medical profession that it will review the schedule fee on a regular basis. The only government to freeze the schedule fee was the former Liberal-National Party Government which, as a part of its national policy, froze the schedule fee without negotiation with the medical profession-the Australian Medical Association, the Doctors Reform Society, the General Practitioners Society, the Society of Surgeons or any one of the multiplicity of medical groups in this country. Senator Teague and his colleagues have the cheek to say that this Government does not know anything about industrial relations and that it intends to do something unilaterally, when the only example of unilateral behaviour in recent times was provided by the former Liberal-National Party Government. The proposed amendments ensure that there will be parliamentary scrutiny of the guidelines brought forward by the Minister. They ensure in fact that in cases where there is a satisfactory agreement with the States the doctors will not have to put their shaking hands to these terrible documents. Senator Baume did not think much of this proposal at all. He pointed out that only doctors can deliver the services that they deliver. I thought that was a fairly obvious statement to make. He said that the system will not operate without them. He said that if the Government did not agree with the system that the doctors wanted they would withdraw their services and this country would not have a health scheme. I would have thought that was the sort of threat that Senator Baume would not like to hear made by the trade unions in this country. I am reminded of an occasion in this place in 1974. In 1974 Senator Peter Baume got up in this place and said that the doctors in this country would co-operate with anyone except the Australian Labor Party. He got a very good run. He got a run in the Doctors Reform Society journal and all over the country by saying that medical practitioners would co-operate with anyone but the Australian Labor Party. But he is wrong. The medical practitioners in this country, particularly the general practitioners, and more particularly general practitioners working in some rural areas and in disadvantaged areas of this country, will co-operate with the Australian Labor Party because they know what a universal health insurance system gives to their patients; it is the guarantee that they can have access to a health service. What it gives to the doctors is the guarantee that they can deliver those health services without being worried about whether the patient can afford to pay to see a doctor. Senator Baume talked about the costs to the taxpayer and how limiting doctors to the schedule fee in hospital services would not affect the total cost of health care to the taxpayer because the rebate is limited to the schedule fee. Of course, I have no argument with him about that. But what this Government has to be concerned about and what every government should be concerned about in this country is not only the cost to the taxpayer, which of course is important, but the cost to individual patients and the cost to people who have to go to those hospitals. If we allow even a few private medical practitioners in public hospitals to use facilities provided by taxpayers' money-as I have said on other occasions, using skills that they acquired at the expense of the taxpayers-and to charge people beyond that fee, the burden falls on those individual patients, and no government should allow that. Any government, be it conservative, Labor or whatever, which provides the amount of money which this Government does to public hospitals in this country under Australia's health scheme without, as I think Mr Justice Kirby said, some strings attached and some accountability, is acting irresponsibly. That leads me to Senator Haines, who quickly pointed out that although Senator Baume initially started to talk about principles, what in fact he talked about was money. That is what it is about and that is what it has been about all the time. Throughout this long dispute between this Government and some members of the medical profession in this country, we have heard about the lack of appeal not against the contracts but against the broad guidelines under which the State governments can, if they like, provide contracts or regulations. This legislation provides that appeal. The Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals has as part of its terms of reference to look at the forms of appeal. The Government has said that it will assist the medical profession in providing to the Penington inquiry evidence about how an appeal should be set up. The Government has said that when the Penington inquiry brings down its findings it will accept them. But the Australian Medical Association has accepted none of those things except that it will gratefully accept the Government's assistance in putting its case to the Penington inquiry. We have had changes to the terms of reference of the Penington inquiry since it was first announced on 24 January this year. On 9 February the terms of reference of that inquiry were widened. Eventually on 16 February the AMA agreed to take part in that inquiry. That is the only concession it has made. On 2 March the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Dr Blewett talked to members of the medical profession and agreed that there would be no change to the guidelines until after the Penington inquiry. They agreed to accept the decisions of the Penington inquiry but it was because of the hopeless situation which was arising , because of the situation in which the AMA could not bring some of its so- called troops into order-although I believe senior officers of the AMA wanted to accept it-that we accepted Senator Haines's proposal that any guidelines brought in by the Minister should be subject to the scrutiny of this Parliament. We even got rid of the section which expressed the need for doctors to sign, in those States where the regulations provided for it, that they would charge no more than the schedule fee. We have the quite ludicrous situation in which most practitioners who are concerned with this legislation do not charge any more than the schedule fee anyway; in some States they have in fact signed contracts, as I have demonstrated in relation to Tasmania, that they will not charge any more than the schedule fee. In Queensland they would love to have the right to charge the schedule fee and love to have the right of private practice that medical practitioners in other States have. All we are doing in this legislation is making some concessions to members of the medical profession so that they will stop this nonsense about going on strike and will do what they are trained to do and what they really want to do; that is, to go into public hospitals and treat patients in the way in which they are supposed to treat them. Senator Teague —They want a say. Senator GRIMES —They have a say. They have endless access to the Minister for Health. They have access to their State Ministers. They have access to the boards of the hospitals in which they work. What more do they want? Yet we had this extraordinary series of speeches tonight and this afternoon about this legislation. I must make passing reference to the speech by Senator Sir John Carrick because I know everyone would be disappointed if I did not. Senator Sir John Carrick does not appear very often in health debates in this place. He used to in the old days and it was nice to hear him again. He gave a mixture of what might be called the free market theory of medicine and the theology of States' rights. He said that the best way to deliver medical services in this country was through the free market. I do not know how many times I have said it in this place but I will bore everyone again by pointing out that one cannot have a free market if either the purchaser or the seller does not have some idea, in fact a full idea, of what the market situation is. In the majority of cases the patient does not have a clue. First of all, in most cases patients cannot make a choice of whether to make the purchase or not; they are sick. The second point is that they do not know enough about the services because they do not have the skills or the knowledge. Governments throughout the world have had to interfere in the so-called free market of health services. Then Sir John Carrick, for heavens sake, told us we should not interfere in this area because it is a traditional area of States' rights; that States look after State hospitals and the specialists in those hospitals. But the States get the money from the Federal Government in these circumstances. The Federal Government in general reimburses the States for the services provided to those patients. We have the extraordinary situation of Senator Sir John Carrick saying that the only duty of the Federal Government is to pour a big bucket of money down that funnel and not care about what happens at the other end of it. Some of the States would certainly like this situation to apply. All the Federal Government is saying is that we want some say in the guidelines of how those doctors work. We do not really differ very much from the recommendations of the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. The Jamison inquiry was established by the previous Government. Senator Teague was very keen to quote the report of the Jamison inquiry. Senator Teague —But you do differ. Senator GRIMES —I do not differ. The Jamison inquiry made several recommendations. As Senator Teague did a bit of selective quoting, we ought to look at the recommendations. Re- commendation 109 reads: There be an urgent review by each of the employment authorities of rights to private practice in hospitals with a view to limiting its scope, consistent with the underlying intent of the contract between an individual patient and doctor. Recommendation 111 states: Steps be taken to phase out over a period of years the right of private practice for full time salaried specialists. Recommendation 112 states: Action be taken to improve the awareness of all medical practitioners of the medical value and cost of tests, not only for pathology but for all diagnostic services. Recommendation 113 states: Guidelines be issued by health authorities on the utilisation of radiology, pathology and pharmacy services. These are strong recommendations, as Dr Blewett said, from what was generally accepted as being a pretty conservative report. All that Dr Blewett and this Government are asking is that we have a series of guidelines which firstly limit the amount of money in some cases which people can take out of hospitals from their privileged position of using public hospitals for private purposes and, secondly-and I repeat this, as I have repeated it over and over again in this place-that in using publicly funded facilities, machinery, buildings and staff which are funded by the taxpayer, they charge the schedule fee which, as Senator Crowley pointed out this afternoon, is a negotiated fee determined by a judge, representatives of the medical profession, consumers and anyone else who wants to put his case. How much more reasonable can one be? I am sorry to disappoint Senator Teague but we are being reasonable and we have been reasonable. The Adelaide News, that radical socialist newspaper which, apart from its right wing tendencies, at one stage had Mr Jim Killen and me both dead in the Royal Adelaide Hospital, pointed out that the doctors were being unreasonable, that the Government had made all the concessions and that if the doctors did not go along with the Government Hippocrates would turn in his grave. I suppose that is not a bad way of putting it even if it involves a bit of hyperbole. Politicians have been known to be guilty of that too. This is a reasonable bit of legislation. Senator Baume thought it was reasonable when he introduced his amendment some months ago. When Senator Haines said: 'Look, this situation is getting impossible; why don't you accept this bit of legislation' we said 'Yes, we will accept it; we have gone a long way but we will accept it because we cannot let the patients suffer'. When we do all that Senator Teague comes in and says: 'The original idea of Senator Baume is a damp squib'. One cannot win in this game. But I believe that in the end the patients must win, the Government must win, the consumers in this country must win and those unreasonable members of my profession must lose. Once they become reasonable, get down to negotiate and put their cases to the Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals-if they accept the findings of that inquiry, that is all the better-we will have a sensible resolution of this situation. This small bit of legislation, which has caused such a fuss in this place this afternoon in fact is a small step along the track to that resolution. I do not accept Senator Baume's amendment, first of all because I do not agree with it and, secondly, because I think it is a bit of an effrontery for someone to come into this place and say: 'Don't accept the Government's legislation; accept my private member's Bill next week'. So we oppose the amendment and urge the Senate to accept the legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Peter Baume's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Rae, PeterHamer, D. J. Scott, D. B. Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. Townley, M. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Hearn, J. M. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Crowley, R. A. Mason, C. V. J. Elstob, R. C. Primmer, C. G. Evans, Gareth Ray, RobertEvans, Jack Richardson, G. G. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Giles, P. J. Ryan, S. M. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Zakharov, A. O. Watson, J. O. W. Cook, P. F. S. Crichton-Brown, N. A. Reynolds, M. Carrick, Sir John Georges, G. Durack, P. D. Sibraa, K. W. Chaney, F. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Reid, M. E. Walsh, P. A. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.40) —The Opposition has a couple of amendments it wishes to move in Committee. It seemed unnecessary to proceed otherwise than to take the Bill as a whole. I begin by asking the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) for advice. Clause 2 says that the Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives royal assent. In the event that royal assent is not received for, say, another 12 or 13 sitting days and the time for possible disallowance of the guidelines which have already appeared has passed, will the Parliament lose the opportunity to disallow the guidelines which have already been brought in? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.42) —I think I gather the gist of the question. The Bill provides: The requirement to lay the guidelines before each House of the Parliament shall be taken to be complied with if the guidelines are so laid within 15 sitting days of that House after the date of commencement of the Act. I do not understand Senator Baume's problem. The commencement of the Act is after the day of royal assent. Senator Peter Baume —Does the Government intend to lay before each House of Parliament the guidelines which have already been introduced? Senator GRIMES —Yes. Senator Peter Baume —So that it will be possible for the Parliament to consider the guidelines which have already come forward, but which are yet to be laid before the Parliament. Senator GRIMES —Yes. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.43) —May I ask further whether clause 3, as proposed, will have the effect of, as it were, deeming most doctors in certain States to have complied with the conditions laid down by the Minister even though they do not sign contracts? If the conflict in the medical profession is about the signing of contracts, will this provide a mechanism for avoiding the matter reaching the crunch point, as it were? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.44) —Yes, my understanding is that that is so. One of the purposes of the legislation is to allow the Minister to do that in those States where regulations under which people are employed will cover the situation that we want to see covered. Therefore, they will not have to sign those pieces of paper. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.45) —I thank the Minister for those explanations. The amendments we wish to move have a different purpose. We believe that while the Penington Committee of Inquiry into the Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals is on, we should seek to remove paragraph (1) (aa) from section 17 and also sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). Those are the provisions about which most of the argument has taken place. The Senate was kind enough to allow me to make a second reading speech last week when I discussed this matter more fully. I shall not take up the Committee's time now. Therefore, I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) together since they both give effect to what is being proposed in the Bill. I think it would be helpful if the Committee could dispose of them together. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I move: (1) Page 1, clause 2, lines 9 and 10, leave out all words after 'shall', insert 'be deemed to have come into operation on 1 February 1984'. (2) Pages 2 and 3, clause 3, leave out the clause, insert the following clauses : Medical benefit not payable in respect of certain medical expenses '3. Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting paragraph (1) (aa); and (b) by omitting sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). Heads of Agreement '4. Schedule 2 to the Principal Act is amended by omitting clause 6.'. These amendments give effect to the major part of the private member's Bill about which I spoke in the Senate last week. The amendments would remove those parts of section 17 for the present time. This would mean that those provisions would not be in the Act while the Penington inquiry was considering the matter. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.47) —The Government opposes the amendments. In fact, the amendments more or less oppose the purpose of the legislation. The Government has given guarantees to the profession in some of these respects. We do not believe that the amendments are a reasonable way to proceed. The Government believes that this legislation is as far as we can go pending the report of the Penington inquiry. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Collard, S. J. (Teller) Missen, A. J. Durack, P. D. Rae, PeterGuilfoyle, Dame Margaret Reid, M. E. Hamer, D. J. Scott, D. B. Hill, R. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. Townley, M. Kilgariff, B. F. Walters, M. S. Lajovic, M. E. Withers, R. G. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Button, J. N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Giles, P. J. Sibraa, K. W. Grimes, D. J. Tate, M. C. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Hearn, J. M. Zakharov, A. O. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Cook, P. F. S. Carrick, Sir John Reynolds, M. Chaney, F. M. Georges, G. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(8.52) —Now that the Committee has decided not to accept the amendments moved by the Opposition I would like to make it clear that the Opposition will be supporting the Bill because the provisions which are in it are, as we have said throughout, an advance on what was there. The amendment we moved last year is one which we support. We said it was not sufficient but it was an improvement. It seems to me that the most interesting part of this Bill, however, is not the provision for disallowance, which I say we are supporting, but the other provision which gives the Government a capacity now to avoid the confrontation with the medical profession simply by not requiring contracts to be signed. If that is the case it may be that the Government, if it makes the appropriate declaration in most of the States, may avoid the need for signing contracts, and this may avoid an imminent lock-out. As for the Territories, I understand that these new provisions will make it unnecessary for contracts to be signed in the Australian Capital Territory. I think this change in circumstance is something we would draw to the attention of medical practitioners. The Opposition will now certainly support the provisions for disallowance in the Bill. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.53) —I thank the Committee. I thank Senator Baume for supporting the legislation at this stage. What the Government has been about all along is ensuring that the doctors charge no more than the schedule fee for the services provided in the manners in which they have been described in this legislation. As Senator Baume has implied, in those States and Territories where regulations or other legislation provide that that be done there is no need for people to sign contracts. I think it is extraordinary that we have gone through the trauma we have between the medical profession and the Government or anyone else over people being unwilling to sign contracts which in some cases are even more generous than the conditions they work under at the moment. I thank the Opposition for its co-operation at this stage. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(8.54) —Mr Chairman, apparently earlier this evening in the second reading debate Senator Baume accused me of indulging in doctor bashing. I think the reason he did that was a question I asked last week about treatment Senator Georges had received after an unfortunate accident last week. I asked Senator Grimes whether it was true that Senator Georges could not get X-rayed at the Canberra hospital because of industrial action. I was wrong and Senator Grimes told me at the time that Senator Georges could not get his X- rays read. I was given the facts by people I trusted. I asked the question and received an answer and a correction. I really do not see what is wrong with that , especially as Senator Baume on 5 March made a speech about my colleague Senator Richardson in which he stated as fact things that he knew were not true. I asked a question and I was corrected by Senator Grimes. I hardly think that would qualify in the circumstances as doctor bashing. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Sibraa, I accepted that really as a personal explanation. It is barely relevant to the clauses of the Bill. In the circumstances I accepted it. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT SOLICITOR (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1984] Consideration resumed from 29 March. The Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(8.56) —by leave-I move: Page 2, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: '3A. After section 35 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Division 1 of Part V: Criteria for granting special leave to appeal ''35A. In considering whether to grant an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court under this Act or under any other Act, the High Court may have regard to any matters that it considers relevant but shall have regard to- (a) whether the proceedings in which the judgment to which the application relates was pronounced involve a question of law- (i) that is of public importance, whether because of its general application or otherwise; or (ii) in respect of which a decision of the High Court, as the final appellate court, is required to resolve differences of opinion between different courts, or within the one court, as to the state of the law; and (b) whether the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in the particular case, require consideration by the High Court of the judgment to which the application relates.'.'. Page 4, clause 6, proposed sub-section 55 (ii), line 15, after 'commencement of ' insert 'section 6 of'. The second of the two is a purely technical amendment. It is to clause 6 of the Bill. Instead of referring simply to 'commencement of' the legislation, it refers to 'commencement of section 6 of' the legislation. I cannot imagine that that would cause any difficulty. The more substantial amendment is one that has been the subject of a great deal of discussion between the parties and certainly as between the parties, the Government and the Law Council of Australia. While not exactly reflecting a consensus of views it does, I think, represent an agreed basic position, although some would wish to go further. What this amendment does is introduce a new section 35A into the Judiciary Amendment Act which articulates criteria for granting special leave to appeal. The language of the amendment is, I believe, self-explanatory. This amendment essentially articulates the two basic objectives, as it were, which I think we would all agree about, of special leave legislation; the two basic criteria which ought to determine whether the High Court of Australia accepts a case-namely, whether the matter of law in issue is one of public and general importance, and secondly, whatever may be the case as to the question of law, whether the whole circumstances of the particular case are such as to raise questions about the administration of justice either in this case or generally. The basic arguments for rejecting other more precise and automatic criteria were spelt out at length by me in my second reading reply in this place last week. Similarly the reasons for opting for indicative criteria of this kind were also spelt out. I do not believe the amendment needs any further explanation from me so far as honourable senators are concerned. Should there be any further questions or discussion I will, of course, be happy to contribute further to the debate. I commend this amendment to the Committee. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.00) —The Opposition is not opposed to this amendment, although it does not think it is of much significance one way or the other. The High Court of Australia has evolved criteria on which it will grant special leave to appeal and I do not think that spelling out some of these criteria in the legislation will make one iota of difference to the way in which the High Court will continue to exercise its powers in that regard. Of more important consideration is how the High Court will exercise this now sole ground on which appeals to it can be brought. At present the High Court deals with these applications in Canberra, generally with a Bench of three judges. Many people are concerned that very rarely are reasons given and people get pretty short shrift when they appear before the High Court to seek special leave. Perhaps that is more justified in circumstances where there is an appeal as of right in a large number of cases. As I have said, a number of concerns have been expressed. One is that the High Court deals with applications for special leave only in Canberra so that applicants or their counsel have to make the journey here. Certainly most come from Sydney or Melbourne but that is an expense in itself. Certainly for those litigants or counsel coming from, say, Perth, it is of great expense indeed. Then, if they are successful, they have to make another journey to Canberra for the actual hearing of the appeal. I know that in some cases the High Court will treat the applications for special leave as the hearing but no doubt there will be fewer cases in the future, as a proportion of the whole, when that facility will be provided. There is a very real concern about that aspect of the matter and I wonder whether the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) can give us some indication of what is proposed to be done about that. Of importance to those in distant places like Perth, Hobart, Adelaide or even Brisbane is that the High Court now visits those places once a year but some concern has been expressed to me that if the High Court is to exercise jurisdiction only in cases of special leave, particularly if it has to sit outside Canberra more often to hear those applications, it might be more reluctant to sit regularly in those cities as it has done since it moved to Canberra. I would like an indication of the Government's view in relation to those two points I have raised. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.04) —I acknowledge the concerns expressed by Senator Durack, as indeed I did in my second reading reply . I can summarise my response to them as follows: So far as the expense which is undoubtedly involved in travelling, particularly twice, to Canberra for applications for special leave and then the subsequent appeal is concerned, as I indicated it is the case that the High Court has now agreed in principle, and the Government has agreed in principle, to have regular High Court sittings in both Sydney and Melbourne. It is just a question of working out the final administrative nuts and bolts but I hope it will be the case that in all but the most exceptional circumstances in future the applications for special leave coming from those two cities are heard in those cities rather than necessitating a separate journey. As to the more far-flung States, so far as I am concerned it is certainly not the case from anything I have heard that there will be any lessening of the number of visits paid by the High Court to those States and I cannot imagine where that particular suggestion may have emanated from. I do acknowledge that those visits are relatively few and far between and not such as to accommodate all those likely to be wanting to make special leave applications and it is in that context that I have said, and will say again, that we are exploring the application of modern technology, in particular video conference technology, as an alternative to incurring the very substantial costs involved in having counsel fly half way round the country for what might be a very short hearing. Certainly it is my desire in every conceivable way possible to reduce or remove the additional expense involved for litigants in adopting this change. A further thing I can say about this, as again I said in my second reading reply, is that we will monitor closely the operation of this new provision and stand ready to review it in the event that any significant shortcomings are revealed. I imagine it would not be appropriate for any such review to take place in a period less than about two years in order to enable a proper trial to take place with appropriate statistics and so on being gathered in the interim, but in the event that any obvious shortcomings are revealed before that time I undertake to the Committee that we will act promptly to remedy them. As to short shrift being given to applications for special leave, two points can be made: Firstly, it is certainly my desire that applicants be given reasons , so far as that is possible, by the Court for its decisions. I have engaged in discussions with the Court about how that might best be done, albeit outside the framework of legislative regulation. Secondly, and more particularly, I refer to the reason why a number of cases which perhaps ought to be taken by the High Court are not being taken at the moment. The reason why a significant number of disgruntled potential litigants is at the margin is simply that so much of the High Court's docket each term is taken up with appeals as of right. The position taken by the Government, and I spelt out the statistical foundation for this position when I spoke last time, is that at the moment far too many cases which do not raise questions of law, of general public importance , or which do not involve questions of the administration of justice or an apparent miscarriage of justice in the circumstances of the particular case are occupying the time and attention of the High Court. As I said last time, those appeals as of right presently occupy something of the order of 40 or 50 per cent or in some years even 60 per cent of the total number of appeals being dealt with by the Court. It is the view of close observers of the Court that probably only a quarter of those appeals going up as of right at the moment involve points which would be considered by the Court, or by anyone else for that matter , to justify special leave being granted. If we whittled back in that way to the really serious and important cases the number presently going up and occupying the Court's time, there would obviously be that much more time available on the Court's docket each term to hear cases coming through the special leave application mechanism. I am certainly confident that meritorious cases, those demanding attention at the level of the highest court in the land, will be heard and determined by the Court on a greater scale than has been the case. Again that is something about which it is difficult to make confident assertions at this stage. Maybe it is something about which we need the further test of experience. I simply repeat that we are willing to expose this legislation to the test of experience and review it very carefully after the operation of a couple of years of that experience. I hope that honourable senators will appreciate the reasons that the Government, in consultation with the Court and following extensive discussions with all the relevant professional interests, has taken the position it has on this. It seemed to us that there simply were not any justifiable grounds for any one or other of the automatic appeal criteria that have been advanced. We needed to opt for a discretionary approach to this matter. The guidance that has been given by this new clause which I moved, even if not representing any particular change to the law-I agree with what Senator Durack said in that respect-at least will represent significant additional guidance to the Court in the exercise of its discretion, and that can be no bad thing. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.11) —I do not wish to raise again the matters that I raised at the second reading stage and to which the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) responded. I wish to raise just a perhaps minor thing. Why do we still retain the term 'special leave'? I understand that leave is granted by lower courts and special leave is granted by the High Court of Australia, but the High Court can grant leave only once. Why do we continue to call it special leave? Why cannot we just call it leave? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.12) —That is a good question from Senator Harradine and not one to which we have addressed any attention. Being an essentially conservative administration, we have decided to simply follow tradition in this respect. As it has been called 'special leave' since the High Court of Australia was formed in 1903, we did not want to generate any undue sense of uncertainty or disarray in the establishments around this nation that we were confronting in any head-on way the traditions of the Court. Perhaps this is a matter that we will summon up courage to address when we move into a more radical mode later in our administration. I will test the reaction of the High Court to Senator Harradine's suggestion. We are all in favour of simplification and the shortening and streamlining of language. Redundant terminology is involved here. I appreciate the point he has raised. We will have a look at it. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(9.14) —The Federal Court of Australia Amendment Bill and the Australian Government Solicitor (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 were debated cognately with the Judiciary Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1984. As a result, these are purely formal stages it is now necessary to go through. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 29 March, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(9.16) — The Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill which we will debate briefly, as I understand it, proposes to regulate the use of the Advance Australia logo. The ultimate aim of the Advance Australia campaign is to stimulate demand for Australia goods and services and to stimulate a recognition, both in Australia and elsewhere, of the quality of Australian goods, of the desirability of the acquisition of Australian manufactured goods and of the development of some national pride in that which this country can produce. The campaign was started in about 1978 under a former colleague, the former Senator Sir Robert Cotton, who had been Minister for Industry and Commerce. It has developed from there to the stage where, today, the Advance Australia logo is widely used. Looking at the achievements of that campaign, one recognises that a large number of the ambitions of the former coalition Government in stimulating interest and pride in Australian workmanship , capacity and products have been achieved. There was a demand for the products and a need to protect the logo from misuse on products which may not have been of the necessary quality and may not even have been manufactured in Australia. Steps have been taken to do two things which were announced in the latter part of the year before last under the former Minister for Industry and Commerce in the coalition Government; namely, to make the Advance Australia campaign self-supporting and to remove it from being a cost to revenue, a cost to the taxpayer. It reached the stage, after the expenditure of some $5.14m of taxpayers' funds to 30 June 1983, where it was possible to license the use of the logo, to charge fees for the licences and for the whole of the campaign to become self-supporting. In other words, it is one of the success stories of a government sponsored development of national pride and of a user pays principle being applied where public funds have been used to get the thing going and, having got going, it has become self-supporting. The provisions of this legislation which the Opposition supports are: To regulate the use of the Advance Australia logo in order to prevent undermining the objectives of the Advance Australia campaign; to grant monopoly use of the logo for copyright purposes to the Advance Australia company; to enable legal action to be taken for infringement of copyright; to provide safeguard provisions to protect the Commonwealth's interest and investment in the campaign ; to provide for the copyright to revert to the Commonwealth when the company winds up; and for it to be enforced for the usual period of 16 years from 31 October 1983. That situation will become a reality with the passage of this Bill . The Bill provides for two sorts of licences. The first is a non-exclusive licence to use the logo where 0.1 per cent of the budgeted turnover for a specific product is charged as a fee for the licence. The use of the logo in the non-exclusive category can be used on packaging, business cards, letterheads and like goods. An exclusive licence can also be used where the logo is a predominant feature of a product. The cost of the royalty is the standard industry royalty payable on brand names. I understand that some 700 non- exclusive licences and some 40 exclusive licences have been granted at this stage. The criterion for gaining a non-exclusive licence is that the product must contain 75 per cent of Australian content. In the case of exclusive licences, very properly, there is a requirement that there must be 100 per cent local content. Again, it is quite clear that the whole objective of the campaign started by the former coalition Government and carried on by the present Government is to ensure the continuing development of this logo. With events such as we saw last year in the win of Australia II in the America's Cup and a number of other very successful events held in Australia or won by Australians there is an increasing awareness in the logo. I go back to the battle waged by Sir John Gorton as Prime Minister to develop a modern awareness, a national pride in Australia. The development of the Australian Film and Television School and a variety of other things lifted Australia and took us through the period of the 1970s in the creation of what I believe was a feeling of identity through to the Advance Australia logo campaign , which started in 1975 and which is continuing successfully. I warmly applaud the present Government's continuation of the program. The Opposition could comment on particular aspects of this matter but I think that I have said sufficient other than in relation to one thing, that is small or new businesses. Small businesses and new businesses may like to incorporate the logo. I believe it would be desirable if some consideration were given as soon as possible to providing terms for perhaps a starting fee which did not impose too much of an imposition on the firm or small business which was just commencing. The starting fee could then develop to the full phased fee when the business was fully under way. I suggest that as a way of encouraging the development of business and the use of the logo in Australia. As I said, there are some 700 non-exclusive and some 40 exclusive licences. As I understand it, the latter are negotiated on a normal royalty basis which may enable the company to assist small business and developing business in the way in which I have suggested. With that suggestion, I simply indicate that the Opposition warmly supports the introduction of this legislation by the new Government, which is, as I have mentioned, a continuation of a program developed by the former Government. I am sure there is complete bipartisan support for it from all sections of this chamber and all the people in the community. I find it very hard to imagine that people would suggest that this is other than a good thing. Let us get on with it. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.26) — In this debate on the Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill I raise a matter relating to the logo itself. The logo is a representation of the Australian flag with a darkened triangle pointing upwards. To the extent that it is representative of Australia, it does a little bit better than, for example, the Australian bicentennial road development program's logo in which it is very difficult to detect or discern the shape of the State from which I come, Tasmania. I take the opportunity of raising this matter before the Senate which, in fact, is the States House. I take this opportunity while we are speaking about logos and representations of Australia to point out that tourist cards which are published in the city of Canberra have on the back a depiction of the Australian mainland and a message urging the recipient to show the card to a friend with the object of promoting tourism in Australia. These cards have a map of Australia with the significant omission of Tasmania. I take the opportunity that the second reading debate affords in that it deals with logos and representations of Australia to remind the Senate and the public of the importance of ensuring that Tasmania is not left off the map as it was in Queensland during the Commonwealth Games. That is the sole reason for my standing up in this place. Senator Peter Rae —By whom is the card to which you referred published and which is circulating in Canberra? Senator HARRADINE —According to the information provided to me the tourist postcard is produced by Colortech Productions of Canberra. That information was supplied to me and perhaps to other senators by a civil engineer in New South Wales who presumably has the interests of the State of Tasmania at heart. Again, I apologise for delaying the Senate, but I believe that it is important not only for the Government but also for the people who are attempting to advance Australia, whether through tourism or industry in the private sector, to be aware of the feelings of the people in my State about being left off the map. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate)(9.29) —As previous speakers have pointed out, the Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill 1984 deals with the so-called Advance Australia logo which Senator Harradine described with such graphic care in the course of his speech. All I can say to Senator Harradine about the Advance Australia logo is that Tasmania's star is there in the Advance Australia logo although, as he pointed out, Tasmania might have been omitted from some other logos and promotional campaigns. I see that as a source of great regret because I regard Tasmania as a jewel in the potential crown in the Commonwealth tourist industry. It would be a great mistake by Colortech of Canberra to go on ignoring that fact if it is publishing tourist postcards. I thank honourable senators for their general support of the Advance Australia Logo Protection Bill. Indeed Senator Rae displayed a warmth which is often absent in this chamber in his support of the legislation. I appreciate that. The Bill seeks to regulate the use of the logo as the unlicensed use of it threatens to undermine the viability of the Advance Australia campaign and of course the financial viability of the Advance Australia company. Plenty of colourful examples have been given of imports into Australia from various countries which have the Advance Australia logo affixed by the manufacturing work force in other places before they arrive here. This was a source of great concern to the company and, of course, I think to most Australians. I make the point that the Advance Australia company is a non-profit, self- funding public interest company which, as Senator Rae pointed out, was established in 1981. Revenue raised by the company is used to promote the campaign which is aimed at stimulating the demand for Australian goods or Australian made goods. I think that is a very important exercise. It is for that reason that this Government has continued to support the Advance Australia company and has brought in this legislation at its request to protect the logo. It is for similar reasons that the Government has resumed funding of the Industrial Design Council of Australia, for example. Unless we take much greater care and be a little more painstaking about questions of product design and quality in this country and unless those questions are substantially addressed in the way they have not been in the past, there can be no long term resurgence of the Australian manufacturing industry. This legislation is required because in the heady and desirable enthusiasm of Sir John Gorton's days, to which Senator Rae referred, and when this company was first established, the logo design was not registered prior to its industrial use. This legislation is designed to ensure that the campaign is not discredited by use of a logo on imported goods, as I pointed out a minute or two ago. It is to protect the interests of Australian firms which, in good faith, supported the campaign through franchise arrangements. The Bill will establish the company as owner of the copyright and design of the logo and provide for laws relating to ownership of personal property to apply for the design of the logo. Advance Australia and franchisees will be able to seek compensation in the courts for damages if there is any infringement of their rights. Senator Rae, in the course of his speech, made a suggestion that perhaps the company could consider that the starting fee, as I think he called it, paid by a franchisee for the use of the logo might be adjusted to accommodate the interests of small and new businesses. I might say with respect that that is a very worthwhile suggestion and one which I will pass on to the chairman of the company as coming from Senator Rae in the course of this discussion in the Senate. Finally, I make the point which I really touched on a minute ago, that it will be the company's responsibility to seek protection through the courts as an independent entity without the need for Commonwealth involvement in any litigation which takes place. But there are safeguard provisions in the Bill to protect the Commonwealth's interests. For example, if the company should be wound up the ownership of the logo would revert to the Commonwealth. If there were any unidentified or indeed unlikely circumstances where the Minister took the view that it was no longer in the public interest for the company to own the logo, it would similarly revert to the Commonwealth. I make those technical points about the legislation. I think that the most important thing is the enthusiastic support which it has received in the Senate and the recognition on both sides of the chamber and indeed, I think, in Australia generally of the importance of encouraging the purchase of Australian manufactured goods by Australians, and the importance of encouraging a pride in good quality Australian products, well designed Australian products, and if we can, of spreading something of the enthusiasm to which Senator Rae referred in connection with the America's Cup through to industry and the purchase of the products of Australian industry because they are regarded as good and a source of pride by all Australians. I thank the Senate for its support of the Bill. I commend the second reading to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(9.38) —Tonight I want to place on record my pleasure in the work that was done by the Australian Capital Territory Tourist Commissioner, Mr Don Hamence, during the three years in which he held that position. His term of office ended on 31 March 1984 when the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) failed to renew his term of office. Let it be clear that originally he was appointed for a two-year term and that term was extended by 12 months. There is no suggestion that the Minister terminated his employment, but I criticise the fact that his term was not renewed. I think Canberra has lost a great deal as a result of his not continuing in that office, because of the expertise that this man has and the experience he gained during the three years he was Tourist Commissioner. A former Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Ellicott, realised the potential for tourism in the Australian Capital Territory. He also realised that it was important for the Australian Capital Territory to diversify its economy and develop those areas where jobs could be most readily obtained. No one would ever imagine that the Australian Capital Territory would ever be other than principally a town where the Australian Public Service has the dominating role in employment, but I think that most people would agree that it is important to diversify as widely as possible the employment base to give the widest possible range of opportunities for jobs to young people who are growing up in the community. Mr Ellicott saw the position of Tourist Commissioner as needing to be in part Public Service and in part not Public Service-at somewhat of a tangent to the Public Service-so that the person who held the job could have some freedom to move in a way that a public servant may not be able to move. The position also needed a person who had an understanding of how the private sector operated and had experience in that area. The person who was appointed was Mr Don Hamence. He had had a distinguished career. Previously he had been with Hertz Rent-a-Car in Melbourne. He had an understanding of both private sector operations and the tourist industry. In fact, the appointment was made subsequently by Mr Hodgman as Minister for the Capital Territory. As I said, Mr Hamence has held the job for three years since then. In that time the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory has developed in a way that cannot be lightly ignored. The number of visitors to Canberra increased by 9.4 per cent in the first year that Mr Hamence was involved in promoting tourism . The number went up by 17.8 per cent in the second year and 24.6 per cent in the third year. That seems to me to be a totally outstanding achievement as a result of the work that he did during his three years in that position. It should not be overlooked that the 24.6 per cent increase in the number of tourists visiting the Australian Capital Territory in the third year represents an increase of 1,500 jobs in the tourist industry in Canberra during that time. That probably makes it the largest employer of labour outside the Public Service . The tourist industry in the Capital Territory has been let down by the present Minister by his failure not only to reappoint Mr Hamence to his job but also to provide adequate budgetary allocations to the Tourist industry. In last year's Budget $500,000 was allocated to tourist promotion. That was identical to the amount allocated the previous year. There was no increase in the allocation, not even to take account of inflation. Last year the Commonwealth allocated $30,000 to supplement the moneys of the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau. That amount is identical to that allocated the previous year. That sum is matched dollar for dollar by the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau. Last year its commitment to tourism was such that it provided $50,000, which is in excess of the amount it was required to provide under the provisions of the Commonwealth grant. During the time that Mr Hamence has been promoting tourism in the Capital Territory he has travelled throughout Australia and overseas in order to produce the results to which I have referred, namely, the percentage increases in the number of tourists visiting the Australian Capital Territory. He has made contacts and has supervised the establishment of offices in both Melbourne and Sydney for the purpose of representing Canberra and promoting the national capital as a tourist attraction. I regret most the loss of the experience he has gained over those three years. I think it is a great pity that the Minister for Territories and Local Government so little understands the need for promoting tourism in Canberra that, apart from not responding to his financial responsibility, he has allowed this man to leave Canberra. Last year funds provided to the Australian Tourist Commission increased by 75 per cent. That gives some indication of the attitude to tourism of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and his understanding of the needs of the industry. Tourist commissions have been set up in most States of Australia but not yet in the Australian Capital Territory, in spite of the very strong recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the Commissioner for Tourism that a tourist commission be set up in the Capital Territory to ensure that its tourism development continues . I have no doubt that Mr Hamence will get on well in his future endeavours. He has ability. He has already been offered a number of positions by such organisations as the South Melbourne Cricket Club. Hertz Rent-a-Car has been in contact with him about rejoining that organisation. The Australian Tourist Commission has spoken to him about his taking up a position as a consultant to it. At least the Australian Tourist Commission appreciates what he has to offer to the tourist industry, even though the local Minister does not. I understand that the Northern Territory Government has had consultations with him about his working as a consultant to it. A report in the Canberra Times reads: The Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, acting on advice from his department, decided to not renew Mr Hamence's term after its expiration today. I wrote to the Minister suggesting that it was an error of judgment to proceed with this course of action. The Minister said in reply: It is recognised that Mr Hamence has made a contribution to tourism in the ACT. I regard that as the understatement of the year, when one considers the percentage increases in tourism to which I have already referred. At least the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism appreciates Mr Hamence. Last Thursday night a testimonial dinner was held in Canberra, attended by 140 representatives of the tourist industry. Another 40 people sent their apologies. That indicates a fairly high degree of involvement on the part of Mr Hamence in the tourist industry, and in a sense it reflects the views of its representatives about his being taken away from them in this manner. Mr Brown sent the following telegram to Mr Hamence: Sorry, prior commitments prevent me from being with you this evening. I could not let the occasion pass however without saying how impressed I have been with the enthusiasm you have displayed for the promotion of tourism in the ACT. My best wishes to both you and your wife for the future. I hope it is of some consulation to Mr Hamence that at least that Minister appreciates his talents and what he did for the Australian Capital Territory. That this man is now living in Melbourne is a serious and grave loss to the Australian Capital Territory. I would not wish my remarks in any way to reflect on the man who has been appointed to replace him. I refer to Mr David Dickson who has been managing the National Sports Centre at Bruce. He is an extremely talented person. I have no doubt that he will be able to do the job. No matter how well he does it, tourism in the Australian Capital Territory will be three years behind the position that it should have been had the job been done by the man who has already made the contacts and who has been successful in promoting tourism in the Capital Territory. It is simply my wish to place on record my sorrow that the Minister showed so little judgment in this matter by not ensuring that this man stayed in this community. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(9.46) —Friday, 23 March, is a date that will be remembered in the Northern Territory as the day that Cyclone Kathy lashed Borroloola, that very remote small town 50 miles south of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Some 500 people took shelter in the police station and in the community hall. Honourable senators will remember that just the other day I moved a motion in this place commending the police officer who did an extremely good job in looking after the people of Borroloola, as well as the many other people who provided assistance. Much comment has been made about whether aid has been provided to Borroloola and whether government authorities are co-operating in providing assistance. As a result of Cyclone Kathy lashing Borroloola one person lost his life on a lugger, and many other luggers in the Gulf of Carpentaria were washed ashore. Within hours of that lashing, the Royal Australian Air Force, in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government, rushed supplies to Borroloola. As was the case when Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin, the Royal Australian Navy also provided assistance. I wish to reassure those who feel that perhaps arrangements to provide assistance have gone amiss that that is not the case. I shall read into the Hansard record a series of messages that have passed between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government. I often think that in these sophisticated times when things can be made to happen at the push of a button and in these times when we have modern methods of communication on occasions things can go amiss. Messages have been flying backwards and forwards suggesting that the Northern Territory is not participating in the provision of relief to the people of Borroloola. The first telex to which I refer is dated today. It was sent by the Acting Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It states: In response to your telex I thank you for your message of sympathy for those affected by Cyclone Kathy. I know that the Commonwealth stands ready to assist the Northern Territory under the natural disaster relief arrangements. This assurance is welcomed. From a question asked in the Senate today it appears that there is some misunderstanding regarding formal acceptance of your offer. In the past the Northern Territory Government has claimed reimbursement of expenditure on approved relief measures in accordance with the Commonwealth natural disaster relief scheme; total physical damage is estimated at less than $1 million-- That refers to Borroloola of course, not the luggers. It continued: The extent of financial support required from the Commonwealth cannot be determined until Northern Territory expenditure exceeds its assessed financial capacity under the relief scheme. The Northern Territory counter disaster plan sprung into operation immediately providing emergency relief, and where needed shelter and food. The Treasurer/ Minister for Lands visited Borroloola immediately after the cyclone. Government officers are presently preparing an urgent submission on the need for assistance for the relief of financial hardship. I hope that these arrangements will be acceptable to you, and are not construed as a lack of acceptance of the Commonwealth's offer. Yours sincerely, There was a Press release by the Treasurer, Mr Marshall Perron, on 1 April, which was yesterday, which stated: Three officers from the Department of Community Development should complete a comprehensive review of the needs of the people of Borroloola by the end of this week. The officers are interviewing every person in the community and the surrounding outstations to determine levels of government assistance needed in the wake of Cyclone Kathy. The Treasurer, Mr Marshall Perron, said today that the Government would be in a position to deal with individual needs once the report was assessed. Mr Perron, who inspected Borroloola the day after the cyclone struck, said government teams had meanwhile provided all assistance possible to the town. Power had been restored quickly, sewerage systems pumped out and maintained, and provisions brought in from Darwin and Katherine. He rejected claims by the Northern Land Council and the Opposition that Aboriginal people had somehow been neglected. 'Nobody is short of food, clothing and immediate shelter,' he said. 'A credit system has been established at the local store and emergency supplies are also available. 'Tents and tarpaulins were in short supply for a few days, but this was rectified once the flood situation eased in the Daly River area. One can well imagine, with the very heavy monsoons at this time, in conjunction with Cyclone Kathy, that the whole country was absolutely under water. If people down here cannot appreciate such a situation I can only suggest that they go to the Top End of Australia in what we call a wet wet, such as is being experienced this year. The Press release continued: 'All available tents were then transferred to Borroloola. Mr Perron said longer term problems regarding housing for Borroloola people were being addressed. He said the Housing Commission and the Aboriginal Development Commission had been asked whether housing projects could be brought forward. Decisions on this were expected shortly. The Treasurer said that the Borroloola town plan which had been brought into action last week would not disadvantage any people in the area. 'I have previously made it clear that the town plan seeks to manage future development in a sensible manner, and that the rights of existing land users will not be at risk.' A statement, reporting Mr Marshall Perron some four days later, on 27 March, after the cyclone, stated as follows: There will be no delays in the delivery of financial assistance to the town of Borroloola, according to the Northern Territory Treasurer, Mr Marshall Perron. He said today the Government would move immediately to help out people in distress following Cyclone Kathy. 'There appears to be some confusion about the manner in which natural disaster relief operates', he said. 'The situation is that the Territory Government will meet all necessary commitments for relief in Borroloola. 'Following that, application will be made to the Federal Government for funding on the three to one ratio as indicated by the Commonwealth. 'That funding will come to the Territory eventually through the natural disaster relief scheme.' Mr Perron said restoration of some government buildings at Borroloola could take many months to complete. 'For example, the pre-school building was totally destroyed by the cyclone-and initial estimates are that it could cost up to $200,000 to replace,' he said. The Treasurer said the total cost of restoration of government and private assets in the township was likely to be less than $1m. For that we can all be thankful. Another statement put out in the last two days reads: Meanwhile the Territory Government has announced a town plan for Borroloola which will have the effect of shifting the major part of the community to higher ground in the coming years. Although 'Kathy'-- That is Cyclone Kathy- did not cause flooding, the possibility of flooding at Borroloola has worried the Territory Government for some time, and the cyclone's destruction makes it a good time to introduce Borroloola's first town plan as rebuilding starts. Residents will be encouraged, but not forced, to rebuild on higher ground away from the flood plains. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard an item from the 1983-84 Budget Paper No. 7 headed 'Natural Disaster Relief'. This paper of two pages illustrates clearly the arrangements that exist between the Federal Government and the States and the Territory with regard to natural disaster relief. It is not my intention to read this document but I refer it to all those who for some reason or other feel that everything is not going well, that something is amiss. I can assure honourable senators that, from the advice I have received and according to the extract from the Budget Paper that I will have incorporated in Hansard, one can see that all is being done for the people. Naturally, there is discomfort when a town gets wiped out. Some 85 to 90 per cent of the town was wiped out. There is continuing hardship but fortunately only one person lost his life. I seek leave to have this paper incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The paper read as follows- NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF Commonwealth assistance for natural disaster relief is provided under the natural disaster relief arrangements. These long-standing arrangements provide for Commonwealth financial assistance to help the States and the Northern Territory meet the unpredictable and sometimes large costs of providing natural disaster relief. The arrangements recognise the States' primary responsibility for the administration, provision and funding of relief measures, in line with their constitutional responsibilities in this area. The Commonwealth's role is confined to providing financial support when a State 's expenditure on approved relief measures in a financial year exceeds its assessed financial capacity. Natural disasters covered by the arrangements are of a weather-related kind-cyclones, floods, storms, bushfires and droughts. Under the arrangements, the Commonwealth provides assistance on a $3 Commonwealth to $1 State basis for expenditure by each State on approved relief and restoration measures in cases of 'major' disasters where such expenditures exceed a State's assessed financial capacity as represented by an annual base amount of expenditure. A major disaster is, for this purpose, defined as a disaster of which a State's expenditure on approved measures exceeds one-tenth of that State's annual base amount. The existing base amounts, set in 1978-79, are: $ million New South Wales 10.0 Victoria 7.0 Queensland 4.0 South Australia 3.0 Western Australia 3.0 Tasmania 1.2 Northern Territory 0.25 The approved measures which attract Commonwealth assistance under the arrangements are as follows: (i) grants for relief of personal hardship and distress (cyclones, floods, storms and bushfires); (ii) grants for restoration of public assets and emergency protection and repair works by State, local and semi-government authorities (disasters as in (i )); (iii) concessional loans to small businesses (cyclones and floods); (iv) concessional loans to churches, sporting associations and other voluntary non-profit organisations (disasters as in (iii)); (v) concessional loans to primary producers for carry-on, restocking and restoration purposes (cyclones, floods, storms, bushfires and droughts); (vi) freight subsidies for primary producers (disasters as in (v)); (vii) subsidies to primary producers for carriage of water to central dispersal points (drought); and (viii) assistance to State, local and semi-government authorities for the disposal of helpless and unsaleable stock (floods, bushfires and droughts). The Commonwealth also meets half of the cost of assistance provided by the States on approved measures for the immediate relief of personal hardship and distress where such expenditures do not qualify for $3 for $1 assistance under the conditions outlined above. Approved measures for the relief of personal hardship and distress comprise the provision of emergency food, clothing and accommodation, essential repairs to houses to make them habitable and secure, and the repair and replacement of essential items of furniture and personal effects. These measures are restricted to people left in needy circumstances as a result of a disaster. In practice, the cost of assistance provided for the immediate relief of personal hardship and distress under the $1 for $1 arrangements is minor compared with assistance provided under the $3 for $1 arrangements. As a result of the inclusion of the above-mentioned measures in the arrangements, the States are able to assume that relief expenditure incurred in respect of these measures will be eligible for Commonwealth assistance following specified major disasters. If a State wishes to change the terms of previously approved measures (e.g. the size of concessional loans), it is required to seek Commonwealth agreement. It also remains open to a State to request Commonwealth agreement to a new measure which it may wish to implement for a particular disaster or indeed to implement, completely on its own initiative and without seeking Commonwealth approval, measures for which the State would itself accept full financial responsibility. A provision of $8.5 million was made in the 1982-83 Budget for natural disaster relief. Commonwealth assistance to the States and the Northern Territory increased to $146.3 million by the end of 1982-83. This large unexpected increase resulted primarily from the worsening of the drought in all the mainland States and the bushfires in Victoria and South Australia in February 1983. In addition, several States, particularly Queensland, made claims in respect of storms, floods and cyclones. The Budget estimate for 1983-84 of $110.4 million is to provide for outstanding commitments and continuing assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for natural disaster relief. Significant assistance will continue in respect of outstanding commitments for bushfire relief in Victoria and South Australia, for relief in areas still affected by drought, particularly in Queensland, and for re-establishment assistance in other areas which were, until recently, severely affected by drought. In addition, a large provision has been made for relief of the extensive flooding which occurred in New South Wales and Queensland between April and June 1983. As these floods occurred only recently, full assessments of flood damage have not yet been completed and it is possible that Commonwealth commitments for relief payments in respect of these floods will increase during 1983-84. The following table shows payments to the States since 1979-80, including estimated payments in 1983-84. Reflecting the differing incidence of disasters, the amounts vary considerably from one State to another and from one year to another. Senator KILGARIFF —I do not think there is anything further to say about the situation at Borroloola. Careful attention has been given to that unfortunate town. The people are being looked after. Once again I commend the authorities and the people of Borroloola who did so much to look after the people of the town, whether they were Aboriginal or white; it is a mixed town. The authorities did well. I wish to refer very briefly to another matter. As honourable senators probably realise, from time to time I continue to refer to the rail link project between Alice Springs and Darwin. It is my intention to have tabled in the Senate a report entitled 'Developing Railways 84', a Railway Gazette International publication, which is a very interesting publication. I encourage honourable senators to read this publication which has a special feature on page 26 headed 'Alice-Darwin Australia's Missing Link'. It has been written by D. P. Smith who is the Chief Civil Engineer of Australian National and the person responsible for the construction of the line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs some four years ago and who has been responsible for the planning until now for the proposed project of the continuing rail link to Darwin. It is a most interesting article. I will refer to it briefly. Part of it reads: The Alice Springs to Darwin railway is the missing link in a 3000 km north- south transcontinental line across central Australia which has been mooted for over 100 years. Talking of the proposed route, he states: The railway corridor passes through Tennant Creek and Katherine-the only towns of any significant size between Alice Springs and Darwin-with a generally direct route through each section. The route traverses a sequence of climatic regions, from hot and dry at Alice Springs to wet monsoonal at Darwin, with a corresponding range of soil and other characteristics. Average annual rainfall- And so he goes on and on. He talks of mapping and survey. He says: Available mapping over much of the route is limited, compiled from old aerial photography, which has large blank spaces in many areas . . . Landsat satellite imagery at 1:250,000 were helpful, by indicating terrain characteristics . . . The report continues, under the heading 'Geological Investigations': Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy uses its own engineering geologists and other resources for the detailed investigations, supplemented by consultants and contractors. He goes on to report on water supply. He states: Large quantities of water will be needed . . . He talks about the identification of water supply sources. He also talks about the anthropological aspect. He states: An important consideration throughout the design and planning work has been the need to avoid damage to the sacred sites of Aboriginal people. This need has led to a programme of intensive research and consultation with Aboriginal groups, which begins before any other field work is undertaken in each area, and sets the pace of subsequent mapping, survey and engineering investigations. Two full- time co-ordinators manage the programme. He then deals with design. He states: The railway will be an extension of the Australian network of standard-gauge general-purpose lines, operating with the same axleloads and at similar speeds but carrying, initially, comparatively small annual traffic volume-probably less than one million gross tonnes. It will be similar, in most respects, to the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line, and comparable design parameters are proposed. The article is based on a paper given at the fifth International Rail Track Conference of the Australian Rail Track Association in September 1983. I seek leave to table this document. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank the Senate. Mr Des Smith is a most interesting person . I suppose he would be looked upon as one of our modern pioneers and engineers. He has done much to put Australia on the map in the world scene in terms of railway construction in the last two, three and four decades. I ask that a summary of progress on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway survey and investigations to 31 January 1984 be incorporated in Hansard. I will not read out this material, which is an up to date report of the work that has been carried out on that line. I have indicated before that at the moment some 100 people are still employed in the planning of this line. Of course, funds are going to run out very shortly and the project will then come to an end until funds are finally made available for the beginning of construction of the line. I seek leave to have the summary of progress on the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Summary of progress on Alice Springs-Darwin railway survey and investigations to 31 January 1984 is as follows: 1. MAPPINGMapping of the corridor is now complete, with preliminary copies of contour plans Buchanan Highway to Katherine received at the end of January 1984. 2. CENTRELINE SURVEYAlignment is finalised for a total of 1000 km, comprising: Alice Springs northwards for 770 km to near Newcastle Waters, 300 km north of Tennant Creek. Katherine northwards for 130 km to Burrundie. Adelaide River to outskirts of Darwin, (approx. 100 km) Of the above final alignment 190 km remains to be pegged, between 110 and 300 km north of Tennant Creek. Contracts have been let for pegging to commence as soon as weather permits. 3. REMAINING ROUTE DEFINITIONApprox. 400 km of alignment remains to be defined and pegged i.e.-Newcastle Waters to Katherine -Burrundie to Adelaide River -Greater Darwin area. Status in each of these sections is as follows: 3.1 NEWCASTLE WATERS-KATHERINE (350 km)Proposed alignment up to Buchanan Highway developed for discussion with Aboriginal traditional custodians of Murranji area . Study of further sections northwards proceeding. Expect to commence field centreline survey end of March 1984 and complete to Katherine by end of calendar year. 3.2 BURRUNDIE TO ADELAIDE RIVER (70 km)Trial surveys completed end of 1983 and results are being studied with a view to completion of final survey during the 1984 dry season. 3.3 GREATER DARWIN AREAA line has been pegged, on the old N.A.R. route up to the Howard Springs Road. Trial surveys were completed late in 1983 on a possible alternative western route between Livingstone Road and the proposed terminal area at Berrimah, via the Lower Elizabeth River and the western side of Palmerston. Trial surveys were also made between the terminal and the port of Darwin. Results are being studied with a view to commencing final survey at the start of the 1984 dry season. 4. DESIGNPlans are complete for the first 200 km section northwards from Alice Springs, and are progressing through towards Tennant Creek, and in the Katherine -Pine Creek and Adelaide River-Livingstone Road sections. 5. GEOLOGICALSite investigations are substantially complete to 350 km north of Alice Springs, from Katherine to 50 km northwards and from Adelaide River to Livingstone Road. Two ballast quarry sites have been drilled and tested between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, and potential quarry sites identified near Tennant Creek and between Katherine and Darwin. Further geological work is now being mainly directed to investigation of sinkholes and soil types in association with alignment definition from Murranji to Katherine. 6. WATER SUPPLYDrilling and pump testing of water bores between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, and between Katherine and Pine Creek have been completed. No further work is proposed in the pre-construction programme. 7. ANTHROPOLOGICALDiscussions are to be held shortly with Aboriginal people associated with the Murranji area, which is expected to be the last section of the route requiring detailed consultations to ensure the alignment has minimal impact on sacred sites. Draft conditions for protection during construction of sites for 200 km north of Alice Springs have been agreed with the Central Land Council. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTFinal E.I.S. is being compiled and draft expected within two weeks. 9. EXPENDITURE-To 31 December 1983 totalled $7 337 463. GENERAL MANAGER AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS COMMISSION SDW 13.2.84 Senator KILGARIFF —One particular aspect has been very disappointing to me. Indeed, many aspects of the project have been disappointing. However, I would like to speak very briefly on the defence aspects of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway line. Honourable senators will recall that the Government set up an inquiry into the feasibility of this project. Mr Hill from the New South Wales Rail Authority was appointed to head the inquiry. But he had a limited reference . In fact, it is rather amazing that the defence aspect of the feasibility and viability of the project was excluded from the terms of reference. One must surely feel that a railway line has a major part to play in the development, and through that the defence, of the north. In spite of that the Federal Government did not include defence in the terms of reference in the inquiry set up to look at the viability of the railway line. Very many aspects in regard to the viability of the line have not come to light. It is my intention from time to time to add to the store of information within the Senate in the hope that the desirability of and the necessity for such a line will be recognised and eventually the line will be constructed. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a Northern Territory Government position paper entitled 'Alice Springs to Darwin Railway-Defence Aspects'. Leave granted. The document read as follows- ALICE SPRINGS TO DARWIN RAILWAY-DEFENCE ASPECTS Northern Territory Government Position Paper Department of the Chief Minister,Darwin, N.T. March, 1984 Logistics are an important dimension of military strategy, and transport is a key element of logistics. In the major work to date on logistics in Western literature, The Sinews of War : Army Logistics 1775-1953 (Office of the Chief of Military History, U.S. Army, Washington D.C., 1966), the author, J. A. Huston, asks whether it is possible, on the basis of over 175 years of experience, to draw any principles of logistics having general applicability. In his conclusions he considers only one area of first and most enduring importance-the role of transport. Huston maintains that the most common limiting factor in U.S. Army logistics has been transport. He states: ''Wherever shortage of supplies or equipment have appeared at the battle fronts , from the Revolutionary War to the Korean War, more often than not it has been the result of shortage in transportation somewhere along the line. While transportation might be the most general limiting factor on logistics as a whole , the limitations of transportation itself might be determined by a small segment of the total transportation system-shipping, port facilities, roads, railroads, vehicles, or other facilities.'' Australia has a unique defence environment. Within that environment, geographic and other considerations place a premium on mobility and the means of achieving mobility in the interests of national defence. The White Paper entitled 'Australian Defence', released in 1976, summarised the key features of the Australian defence environment. ''Factors such as geography, population size and distribution, infrastructure, industrial capacity and resources distribution combine to create enduring features in our physical environment. Our country is an island continent, with an extensive maritime resource area. We have no land frontiers. Except in the Torres Strait area, any approach to our continent would involve a transit of the open ocean, by sea or air. Any confrontation or conflict would be, initially at least, maritime in character. The population is relatively small and is largely urban, coastal and concentrated in the south-east. Defence infrastructure or relevant civilian infrastructure are still limited in the north and west. The physical environment of Australia suggests that the characteristics of our force structure should include: a good capability for external intelligence; a capacity for the regular surveillance and patrol of our ocean approaches and maritime resources zone; naval and air strike components to deter potential adversaries; readily transportable and mobile land forces, with adequate capability for reconnaissance, to meet hostile incursions at remote localities; mobile air defence elements; elements for the protection of shipping from attack or other interference in Australia's focal areas and port approaches; a capability for sustained operations at long ranges from bases and in areas remote from sources of logistic support.'' Chapter 3, paras. 30-32). The importance of transport facilities-and railway facilities in particular-in the Australian defence context is underscored by events in World War II. Traffic on the Northern Australian line grew from 52,085 train km in 1939 to 1, 193,372 train km in 1944, with up to 147 trains per week operating in the latter part of the war. Traffic in 1943-44 was up 6,000 per cent on pre-war years. (Source: Rails to the Top End-The Adelaide Darwin transcontinental railway ( Cromarty Press, Sydney, 1982). The following extracts from that book are revealing: '' . . . the NAR (North Australian Railway) was in such an appalling condition (in World War II) that it could not meet the demands made upon it. The Government in Canberra had been warned several years earlier about the shortcomings of the railway-its ancient locomotives, for example-and had done little to rectify the situation. The shortcomings of the transport system were shown graphically in 1942, when the Japanese posed a distinct threat to the northern coast of Australia. The railway system to the Northern Territory simply could not cope; not only was there the gap between the lines (and the poor road substitute) between Alice Springs and Larrimah, but what railway locomotive and rolling stock there was was grossly inadequate . . . This history, War Economy 1942-45, published by the Australian War Memorial, points out that the war situation made coastal shipping-previously so important in the supply of commodities to Darwin-basically dangerous. The railway, inadequate as it was, had to fill the gap . . .'' Defence arguments in support of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway do not rest on equipping Australia to fight ''yesterday's war'', but relate to Australia's continuing defence requirements. The importance of civil infrastructure-and particularly of transport systems in the north, north-west and centre of the continent-for the defence of Australia, is referred to in the 1976 Defence White Paper: ''Civilian facilities in the south-eastern part of Australia are, with some exceptions, capable of satisfying defence requirements in foreseeable strategic circumstances. Transport systems are less developed particularly in the north, north-west and centre of the continent. There is no all-weather overland route to the north of the continent. Most sizable communities have airstrips capable of accepting RAAF transport aircraft. Most coastal communities can provide fuel and provisions to naval ships, but ports are limited in number. In present and prospective strategic circumstances, increased attention will be paid to influencing developments in civil infrastructure that may be relevant. This comprehends roads, railways, ports, airfields, communications, water acquisition and storage, and power sources. A more organised system is needed for bringing defence interests to the notice of the relevant authorities, with the objective of bringing the location of facilities of this kind more clearly into line with the strategic requirements for the defence of Australia''. ( Chapter 7, paras 31-32). Transport infrastructure in northern Australia is inadequate to meet Australia's defence requirements. Construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway will contribute towards rectifying this inadequacy in Australia's defence capabilities. Support for the above viewpoints is provided by a range of authoritative opinion: The distances involved in our physical environment demand that long-range mobility by land, sea and air should be available to the force from the Defence inventory, complemented by civil aircraft, merchant shipping and other transportation facilities as may be available. Within Australia, restraints could be imposed on mobility by the locations and limitations of existing ports, airfields, roads and railways.'' 1976 Defence White Paper-Chapter 4, para. 95 ''The operations of the Australian Defence Force in mobilisation are directly constrained by the capabilities of the supporting logistics infrastructure. Moreover, this constraint becomes tighter the longer the state of emergency or state of war lasts. These areas are currently a major weakness in the Australian defence posture. Because the environment of Australian military operations in the 1950's and 1960's was always far forward, in north-east or south-east Asia, there has been little concern for the development of indigenous logistics capabilities. Logistics support for Australian commitments from Korea to Vietnam was essentially provided by our allies. As a result, Australia's transport and communication systems, supply and maintenance depots, harbours and docking facilities, power supply systems, medical facilities, etc., are all quite deficient from the point of view of the defence of Australia. Assured logistics support is essential to Australia's self-reliance.'' J. O. Langtry: ''Mobilisation Requirements'', in Australian Defence Policy for the 1980's, edited by Robert O'Neill and D. M. Horner, Queensland U.P., 1982, pp . 189-190 ''Australia has little suitable shipping for operations across the beaches of the north-west. Our only potential landing ship, HMAS Tobruk, which possesses a very small load capacity, cannot beach on such beaches. The ports of Darwin and Port Hedland are thus of the utmost importance and should be developed to expeditiously discharge and clear container and other military cargo. It would be essential that these ports have a co-ordinated air defence capability. We should, too, be determined to hold these ports from either land or seaward attack. If these two port complexes are seen to be strategically important to our control of the north-west, then the road and rail networks must reflect that importance.'' P. J. Greville: ''Central Organisation for Movements in War''. Printed in Problems of Mobilisation in Defence of Australia Ed. Desmond Ball and J. O. Langtry, Phoenix Defence Publications, 1980, p. 92. ''Air and road transport are clearly very significant modes of defence of the Australian mainland. However, rail and sea have a contribution to make. Debate continues over who will pay for construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin rail link. It could be the single most revolutionary contribution to Australia's transport to the end of this century with great ramifications for changing our defence strategy. Completion of the railway would mean a rail link between our major capital cities and would herald the beginnings of the Darwin transport axis. Darwin would become the centre of Australia's trade wheel with Asia with spokes reaching to all Asian cities and trade routes and extending throughout the rest of mainland Australia. The rail link is the perfect example of expenditure on transport infrastructure which could create its own economic viability and at the same time have far-reaching usefulness for Australia's defence. With consultation between business and defence planners this type of development can be continued where benefits accrue to all sections of our community while contributing to national security.'' Address by Sir Peter Abeles to the Royal United Services Institute Conference held in Sydney, October 1983. ''Defence owned transport assets are readily available (to deal with military threats)-but they are limited and designed for specific military tasks. Military assets would be primarily employed to provide mobility in and near areas of operation. The major portion of transport resources needed to carry only men and material from main bases to deployment areas will be provided almost entirely from our national civil assets. (Railways were the) only real effective way of moving large quantities of men and materials. They are susceptible to attack and they can be interdicted, but they have always shown ability to be reconstituted and running again in a short time'' . . . ''With the exception of a few highways, road surfaces were generally poor for military traffic, which mostly exceeded axle-loading regulations. Also climatic conditions in northern Australia were such that serious interruption to road traffic could be expected. Third, Australia's long distances would be highly expensive in terms of drivers , equipment and maintenance.'' Address given by Lt. Col. John R. Brien, Chief Transport Movement Officer, N.S. W., of the Royal Australian Corps of Transport, and commanding officer, 2 Transport and Movement Group, to a meeting of the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association in Sydney, September 1983. Reported in 'The Australian Financial Review', 21 September, 1983. ''Railways are extremely difficult to damage and very quick to repair; however, they are vulnerable over large rivers and, to a lesser extent, in tunnels. The further inland they are, the harder they are to destroy, the easier the terrain and the fewer vulnerable points occur in the system. The more complex the system , the more flexible it is. The new railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin is of immense strategic importance, especially if it contains sufficient passing loops for high density traffic and turnouts for spurs to future military installations''. P. J. Greville, ''National Defence and National Infrastructure'' in Australian Defence Policy for the 1980's Ed. by Robert O'Neill and D. M. Horner, University of Queensland Press, 1982, p. 259. Senator KILGARIFF —I was bitterly disappointed, as I suppose were many other people, because when it was said that there would be a further investigation into the desirability and viability of this line that would take into account the defence aspect one thought: 'Well, okay, if it is not included in the original reference something will come out and surely that will be added to the open inquiry'. I stress the point of an open inquiry. I thought that the development and defence aspects would bring about some sort of result. Of course , the defence aspect was not particularly open. On 15 March the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke) put out a Press statement which reads: The Prime Minister today held discussions with the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, and the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, on the proposed Alice Springs-Darwin railway link. In particular, Mr Hawke discussed with Mr Bannon and Mr Everingham the Federal Government's consideration of the defence implications of the proposed rail link . He advised them that the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, had recommended that : I ask honourable senators to take note of this advice because it is almost gobbledegook- A decision now to divert defence expenditure from projects having priority in terms of endorsed planning criteria to the proposed infrastructure work would, other factors remaining constant, reduce the level of defence preparedness we could otherwise achieve. I suppose this bureacratic statement could be put in plainer language. Of course , in plainer language he said that defence funds are not going to be diverted to this railway link. In any case, whoever suggested in the beginning that the money was going to come from the Defence vote? I suppose what hurt most was the statement that the defence aspect should be the subject of another inquiry. As I took it, there was going to be an in depth inquiry into how the rail link could assist defence in the north. But what came out of the inquiry by Mr Scholes in a report to Mr Hawke after some weeks of supposed investigation? I have it on good authority that the report on the viability of a railway link as far as defence is concerned consisted of 1 1/4 pages of quarto paper. In my view, and everybody else's, this was just a cooked dish. It was just an excuse to put off the situation. All that come out of the inquiry was a report of 1 1/4 pages from the Defence Department to the Prime Minister saying: 'A decision now to divert defence expenditure from projects having priority in terms of endorsed planning criteria for the proposed infrastructure work would, other factors remaining constant, reduce the level of defence preparedness we could not otherwise achieve'. There was no inquiry. There was merely a statement from the Government that it was not prepared in any circumstances to fund the line. Some people in Australia, perhaps those in government believe that this is the end of the project. It is not the end of it. We are entering an interim period. The future will prove that the project is most necessary. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs)(10.10) —For approximately half an hour we have been listening to matters raised by honourable senators representing the Territories in this place, first by Senator Reid who raised problems associated with the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory and then for about 25 minutes the Senate heard a speech by Senator Kilgariff who represents the Northern Territory. Senator Reid raised a number of matters which obviously challenge the judgment of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in respect of the appointment of an officer to handle the important issue, as the Government sees it, of the tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory. She sought to infer that there was some conflict between the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the Minister for Territories and Local Government. I assure the Senate, as well as Senator Reid, that that is not the case and that the Ministers work very closely in their respective portfolios to promote the interests of tourism in the Australian Capital Territory. When an appointment is terminated or a fresh appointment made, I suppose Ministers and governments make different value judgments. Senator Reid agreed that the appointment of Mr Dixon as the new Tourist Commissioner was an important and suitable one, although she criticised the fact that the previous incumbent was not reappointed. However, she admitted that the Minister for Territories and Local Government acted on the advice and recommendation of his own Department. Although there is no doubt that the Government appreciates the work of and the success achieved by the previous appointee, it comes down to a simple question of judgment. The Government in future will be in a position to make a comparison between the progress or otherwise of the officers who hold that important position. I put on record that the Government accepts the need for tourism as an important ancillary activity in the Australian Capital Territory. We recognise the limited base for employment in Canberra, associated as it is with the public sector and parliamentary activities. The need to diversify the employment base is an important ingredient of the task that faces both the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and the Minister for Territories and Local Government. There is no argument that the Government accepts the need to maintain and increase the tourist trade in the Australian Capital Territory. The greater part of the adjournment debate was taken up by Senator Kilgariff who took honourable senators on safari across a number of wide ranging matters as he sees them as one of the Northern Territory honourable senators. The Government appreciates his concern. Indeed, he expressed the Government's concern about the disaster that took place recently in the town of Borroloola and it recognises the need for financial and other assistance. The Government appreciates the national disaster aspect and the responsibilities that lie with the Commonwealth in this area but they are primarily a matter for the Northern Territory Government. I must say, and it must have crossed your mind Mr President, that if honourable senators intend to raise matters on the adjournment it would be useful for them to acquaint the appropriate Ministers with the matters they seek to raise. If the Senate is to concern itself with issues involving persons, movements, States or groups, Ministers should be in a position to make suitable and sensible contributions in reply. As I have indicated, Senator Kilgariff raised a whole range of matters some of which, including transport problems in the Northern Territory, are very close to his heart. One almost had the impression that the honourable senator was facing preselection problems judging by the vehemence with which he addressed himself to parochial matters. I make no criticism of that. Naturally, parliamentarians represent different regions in this place and we need to espouse their cause. However, I suggest that part of the protocol and tradition in this place is that if honourable senators want to incorporate documents-Senator Kilgariff will surely admit that the Minister was pretty tolerant in allowing a number of documents to be incorporated in Hansard-it is customary for those documents to be referred to the Government, with a view to obtaining approval for their incorporation. Whilst I acceded to the request on this occasion, I think it would be in the interests of everybody concerned if we knew what we were agreeing to have incorporated in Hansard. I make that as a passing comment. I draw attention to the fact that while the two honourable senators were presenting their arguments, not one member of the Opposition parties was in the chamber to listen to their contributions. No matter how important those contributions were, the honourable senators concerned were not able to excite any response or interest from their own parties. In other words, it was left to the Government to listen and respond to their remarks. As the adjournment debate has now covered more than three-quarters of an hour, I shall undertake to refer the other relevant matters raised in this debate to the appropriate Ministers. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) —by leave-I advised, as I always do, the subject that I intended to raise on the adjournment. I do not know why the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) did not see the papers I wished to have incorporated in Hansard. I made arrangements for those papers to be passed to the Government side. If the Minister did not see those papers, I do not know what happened to them. I certainly did, as I always do, make that arrangement. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.20 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 420) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 11 October 1983: (1) When will a decision be made on the operations of the Aussat satellite. (2) Does the Minister for Communications accept the report of the Aussat Conference, held in Alice Springs on 16 July 1983, in particular the recommendation that control of the satellite be vested in Aussat and that the Aussat body continue as a relatively small, independent and effective organisation. (3) What plans does the Government have for the allocation of the necessary financial and physical resources to ensure Australians in remote areas receive modern telephone, television and radio services as quickly as possible. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) On 29 February 1984 the Minister for Communications introduced into the House of Representatives the Satellite Communications Bill 1984 and the Satellite Communications (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1984 which cover the ownership of the National Communications Satellite System and the way in which it may be operated. (3) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be provided with the resources necessary to establish and provide the Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service-HACBSS-which will enable people in remote areas to receive one ABC television service and at least two radio services. Funds and resources have been allocated to the Department of Communications to conduct tests of reception of television services by means of small low cost earth stations. When these tests are concluded, the Government will have the information on which technical standards for such earth stations will be determined. There has been a long standing program for the extension of television and radio services to remote communities and this is continuing. The program includes consideration, in particular instances, of extension by means of satellite rather than terrestrial distribution systems where this is shown to be the most cost effective means to adopt. As an addition to the on-going program, the Government allocated funds from the 1983-84 Budget to undertake further extensions to ABC (National) Services through the remote and underserved communities scheme which will extend radio to 12 nominated areas and television to a further 42 communities. In addition, Telecom Australia has announced a program to bring telephone services to remote areas by 1990 through the terrestrial network using digital radio concentrator systems-DRCS-which are designed to extend the basic telephone service to more remote areas in the cheapest possible manner. Telecom has also announced the Iterra Satellite Service, designed to provide a range of switched and leased, voice and data services for enterprises, such as mining, exploration and tourist developments where service is required ahead of normal program timing. The technical and financial aspects of the provision of a telephone service to those few communities which will not be reached by DRCS by 1990 are still under consideration. (Question No. 562) Senator Missen asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 December 1983. (1) Will the Attorney-General's Department examine all issues of the magazine Soldier of Fortune distributed in Australia since 1978 to see if any offence has been committed since the Crimes (Foreign Incursions asnd Recruitment) Act 1978 came into effect and advise the result of that examination (see answer to Question No. 253, Hansard, 1 November 1983, p. 1964). (2) What action is proposed where the Department believes offences have been committed? (3) What is the current retail price in Australia of the magazine? (4) What revenue did Gordon and Gotch Ltd obtain in respect of sales of the magazine for the year ending 31 March 1983? (5) What price did Gordon and Gotch Ltd pay for each of the 2,600 copies circulated in Australia, per issue, for the year ending 31 March 1983? (6) Will the Attorney-General clearly answer in the affirmative or negative part one of Question No. 253 about whether the magazine does or does not ' . . . specifically glorify the activities of mercenaries and proffessional killers,' in respect of issues of the magazine sold in Australia since 1978. (7) Was the answer provided on 1 November 1983 to part one in Question No. 253 drafted by officers in his Department, prepared by members of his personal staff or written solely by the Attorney-General himself? Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Examination of all issues is not considered to be warranted. However, the Department will examine any particular article or advertisement that comes to, or is brought to, its notice. (2) The matter would be referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. (3) The current retail price in Australia of the magazine is $5.30. (4) and (5) This is information which Senator Missen would need to request from Gordon and Gotch Ltd. (6) It is not part of my ministerial function to assess whether literature specifically glorifies mercenaries or professional killers, and I do not propose to do so. I can understand, however, that such a view might well be held. (7) Draft answers were provided by the Department for my consideration. (Question No. 678) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Health advise whether any epidemiological studies have indicated that vasectomy may be clinically harmful, as thousands of Australians undergo this operation each year. (2) Has any medical research shown that men who have been sterilised by vasectomy are likely to develop severe atherosclerosis as a direct result of that operation. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Statistics based on health insurance claims for which benefits have been paid show that around 20,000 Australian men undergo vasectomy each year. To date , there have been no studies published in Australia or overseas which show that vasectomy is clinically harmful. (2) No. Although studies in monkeys have shown that vasectomy results in an increase in atherosclerosis, to date there has been no documentation of a link in the short term between vasectomy and atherosclerosis and/or heart disease in men. Studies of long term effects in man are in progress. However, it may be some years before any such link, if it exists, can be demonstrated. (Question No. 708) Senator Coleman asked the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: Is the Government concerned by reports in the Press that Roxby Downs may not proceed because of the continuing slump in uranium demand and its projected continued slump for at least a decade. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The report released recently by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 'Uranium-Resources, Production and Demand', indicates that existing and committed production facilities could continue to cover reactor requirements until the end of this decade. After that time some production may be required from new facilities. Whether the Olympic Dam project at Roxby Downs will be one of those new facilities will depend upon the outcome of the feasibility study now being conducted by the joint venturers. The Government has decided that if a commercial decision to proceed with the development of the Olympic Dam project were to be made by the joint venturers, the Government would permit the export of uranium produced from that mine, subject to the safeguards arrangements applied generally to uranium exports at the time of export. (Question No. 732) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 27 March 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirm that the former Acting Director-General of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, Mr John Ryan, has returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs as a Deputy Secretary, paid over $60,000 per annum. (2) Can the Minister say why Mr Ryan is regarded as competent to fill such as senior position in view of Mr Justice Hope's criticism of Mr Ryan. (3) Can the Minister also indicate in what way Mr Ryan has been penalised for his responsibility for the ASIS Sheraton raid. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) Before being appointed Acting Director-General of ASIS on 5 October 1981 Mr Ryan was a Deputy Secretary, Level 5, in the Department of Foreign Affairs. While he was Acting Director-General of ASIS he was, technically speaking, placed on the Department of Foreign Affairs list of unattached officers as a Level 5 officer. At the time of his resignation as Acting Director-General of ASIS there were no vacant Level 5 positions in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr Ryan accordingly remains on the Department of Foreign Affairs list of unattached officers. The salary of a Level 5 officer is $60,471. As the Prime Minister announced in the House on 29 February 1984 the question of whether or not disciplinary action, and if so what disciplinary action, should be taken against officers who were the subject of findings in Mr Justice Hope's report on the Sheraton Hotel incident is being examined by Mr Hermes. Pending the outcome of Mr Hermes's examination, Mr Ryan has been placed on special duties in the Department of Foreign Affairs under the direction of the Permanent Head of that Department. Senator Walsh —On 29 February 1984 (Hansard, pages 132-133) Senator Mason asked me a question without notice concerning the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (PNC). I undertook to provide further information on PNC 's other exploration activities in Australia. It is as follows: I understand that PNC is carrying out exploration in the Eyre Peninsula and at Tarcoola in South Australia and at Turee Creek in Western Australia. The company also holds an authority to prospect in an area 50 kilometres east of Chillagoe in Queensland. Senator Grimes —On 15 December 1983 (Hansard, page 3883), Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice as to whether the person alleged to have been involved in certain timekeeping activities in the waiting rooms of doctors' surgeries in Launceston was a member , representative or agent of the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The Minister for Health has provided the following information, obtained from the Special Minister of State: Whilst a search warrant was executed by AFP investigators on the premises of a Launceston doctor's surgery on 7 December 1983, the matter under inquiry was not related to time-tiered offences and therefore the timing of patient visits would have had no relevance. Indeed the warrant was executed after surgery hours when there were no patients present.