Wednesday, 9 May 1984 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully believing that: There is demonstrated evidence of a need for child care facilities by staff, users, and potential users of the National Library of Australia and surrounding buildings in Parkes, A.C.T.; There are at present no such existing facilities; Provision has already been made for inclusion of the facilities in planned extensions to the Library, Humbly petition that your Honourable House reverse the decision by the Minister of Home Affairs and Environment disallowing provision for child care facilities in the extensions to the National Library of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Hamer (from 27 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piece-meal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, urges the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulation and the Customs (Cinematograph and Films) Regulations and supersedes the ACT Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth Law- The power to prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; The power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; The power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from Customs. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should disallow the new regulations and Ordinance and ensure: That the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; That the Censors more appropriately reflect reasonable and responsible community attitudes; That further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; That, because of the importance of this issue to the whole community a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Lajovic (from 45 citizens), Walters (from 187 citizens) and Watson ( from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic (from 156 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned teachers and students working and studying in TAFE colleges throughout Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that the TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 1,435 citizens). Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-I present the following petition: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. It is signed by the State President of the Country Women's Association of New South Wales on behalf of 16,700 members. Petitions received. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Hawke socialist Government for its negligence in opening up the north of Australia to drug runners, illegal migrants, clam poachers and other illegal fisherman, foot and mouth and other exotic animal diseases, and persons and agents with interests contrary to the national well being, by the significant downgrading of capabilities inherent in their new surveillance programs. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) as a matter of national food security, upholds the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly, seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes; (b) recognises that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded, and that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has resulted in the subordination and curtailment of public breeding programs in many countries; (c) in view of the aforementioned, recognises that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust; (d) rejects the majority recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on Plant Variety Rights, that 'the Commonwealth consider the introduction of a PVR scheme in Australia'; and (e) will not support legislation for any scheme which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises (unless such legislation in confined only to ornamental varieties). Senator HAINES(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to protect private property from unjust acquisition under certain laws. Senator COLSTON(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges- All matters pertaining to the release of the Hansard transcript of the proceedings on 3 May of Estimates Committee D. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —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. Technology and Handicapped People-Report by ASTEC-Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978. 2. Determination Required in Relation to Division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84-Statement. 3. Capital Territory Health Commission-Annual Report 1982-83 pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975. 4. National Technology Strategy-discussion draft-together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Science and Technology relating to the document. 5. Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation-report to Parliament for the year 1982-83-together with a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. 6. Inquiry into Legal Aid Office (Australian Capital Territory)-Report by Special Consultant to the Attorney-General-Together with a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the Report. 7. Community Law Reform in the Australian Capital Territory-Letter and attachments from Chairman of the Law Reform Commission-Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973-Together with a statement by the Attorney- General relating to the papers. Senator GARETH EVANS —I also seek leave to have the text of the statements of items 5 and 6, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation report to Parliament 1982-83 and the report of the inquiry into the Legal Aid Office of the Australian Capital Territory, incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The statements read as follows- ASIO REPORT TO PARLIAMENT 1982-83 Tabling Statement by the Hon. Senator Gareth Evans, QC-Attorney-General I table for the information of honourable senators a Report to Parliament by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation for the year 1982-83. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 requires the Director- General to furnish to the Attorney-General an annual report on the activities of the Organisation. The Act also requires that a copy of that report be given to the Leader of the Opposition. The present report, however, is the first report of the Organisation to be tabled in the Parliament since it was established in 1949. There has never been a legal requirement for the Organisation's annual report, or any version of it, to be so tabled for the information of members and senators and, thereby, the people of Australia, and never previously any willingness by governments to do so anyway. The report is very substantially the full annual report as presented to the Government, with the few deletions and modifications only being made to avoid disclosure of matters of real operational sensitivity. I believe the report to be an informative one. It will be a major contribution to both ensuring and demonstrating that accountability of the security services to which Labor is committed, and will encourage a much more informed debate about ASIO than has been the case in the past. The tabling of this report is the first stage in the implementation of Labor's policy objective of maximising the accountability of the security services to the Government and the Parliament. Labor's approach to accountability was set out in detail in the Federal Australian Labor Party's submission to the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. Para. 3.30 of that submission recommends that the Attorney-General be required to report to Parliament on the general operation of the ASIO Act and the general extent to which the provisions of that Act (including the special powers) have been used. The present report seeks to honour the spirit of that submission. REPORT OF INQUIRY INTO THE LEGAL AID OFFICE (A.C.T.) Statement by the Attorney-General, Senator the Honourable Gareth Evans, Q.C. Honourable senators will recall that I announced on 6 February 1984 the appointment of Mr Frank Pryor, an unattached First Division Officer, to inquire into the running of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Office following a resolution to that effect by the Legal Aid Commission (Australian Capital Territory). The report is critical of some aspects of the management, including the financial management, of the Office and makes a number of recommendations for improved management and control. Before considering what action I should take on the report, I am asking the Commission to respond to the findings and recommendations with particular reference to any actions it might propose to take as a result of the report. Before the inquiry began there had been media reports suggesting some 'padding' of accounts by private legal practitioners. Although the inquiry found that arrangements for assessing those accounts had been most unsatisfactory the conclusion was that there was no evidence of deliberate attempts to defraud the Commonwealth nor any indication that any person connected with the Commission or its staff had sought or derived any personal gain from the manner in which these accounts were handled. The inquiry found no reason to doubt the zeal and competence of the Office's legal staff but suggested that the Commission might look at the possibility of developing specialised skills not readily available elsewhere in the legal profession. The inquiry concluded that additional funds estimated at $435,000 would be needed in 1983-84 largely because of a low original estimate which did not allow for the increasing costs of referrals to private practitioners. I take this opportunity to record the thanks of the Government to Mr Pryor for carrying out this difficult inquiry and providing a full report in such a short time. Senator GARETH EVANS —In order to guarantee the attraction of privilege for a particularly sensitive report, I move: That the report of the inquiry into the Legal Aid Office of the Australian Capital Territory be printed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the order of the day for the second reading of the National Crime Authority Bill 1983 be restored to the Notice Paper and be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That the order of the day for the second reading of the National Crime ( Consequential Amendments) Bill 1983 be restored to the Notice Paper and be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the control of tax avoidance schemes. Bill presented, and read a first time. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(10.09) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows: Tax avoidance is a burden upon the honest taxpayer. It is a handicap for Government and it perpetuates inequities within society. Its investigation is expensive and time-consuming, as is its prosecution in the courts. It wastes resources which, otherwise, could be used for the good of society. For that reason, I and my Australian Democrat colleagues are utterly opposed to tax avoidance! Tax avoidance, together with the complex and often ambiguous nature of the various Tax Acts, creates problems for the honest, but diligent, businessman. No-one would argue that every taxpayer has the right to minimize his tax liability before the law. It is the right of every business to do so and it is a commercial necessity which cannot be denied. The problem arises in that an honest, but diligent, business often does not know the legality of a tax minimisation scheme until it is tested in the courts. There is a very thin line between tax avoidance and business acumen. Consequently, the taxpayer is faced with uncertainty as to the legality of his actions. This involves cost, both in terms of legal advice and possible court costs. It is time consuming and it wastes resources. In addition, it creates artifical industries which thrive off the uncertainty. It is for these reasons that Senator Mason and I have supported every piece of anti-tax avoidance legislation which has been introduced into this chamber. The above problems are compounded when Governments implement retrospective anti -tax avoidance legislation. It is for that reason, that my colleagues Senator Chipp, Haines and Macklin have remained true to their consciences and, while being utterly opposed to tax avoidance, have disallowed retrospective legislation. Their concern is shared by many Australians of all political persuasions. This Bill seeks to reconcile the two principles which have clashed in the past: The need to prevent tax avoidance and the wish not to use retrospectivity in tax laws. The Tax Avoidance Schemes Bill seems to fulfil two objects: (a) To declare the opinion of the Parliament concerning the extent to which legislation for preventing the operation of blatant tax avoidance schemes can be expressed to apply retrospectively; and (b) to provide a means whereby persons can guard themselves against entering into transactions that may later be affected by retrospective taxation legislation. Under this Bill the Treasurer may, upon application, declare that a proposed scheme will not be treated as a blatant tax avoidance scheme. A person concerned in, or affected by, the scheme will be entitled to treat the declaration as a firm assurance that no government of the Commonwealth will propose or support legislation that would retrospectively alter adversely to that person the tax law relating to that scheme. The Treasurer is required to formulate and publish the guidelines concerning the manner in which he proposes to exercise his powers. Where an application is made, the Treasurer shall, within 90 days, either make a declaration or refuse the application. If the application is refused, then the reasons for refusal must be stated. Before deciding an application, the Treasurer may consult with the Commissioner of Taxation. Upon declaration, notice of the declaration, including a description of the essential features of the scheme, will be published by the Treasurer in the Gazette. If a person does not enter into, or does not carry out, the scheme in exact conformity with the particulars identified in the declaration, then that person cannot rely upon the declaration to protect them. In addition, a declaration does not affect any liability in relation to a scheme under the law as in force when the scheme is entered or commenced. (This includes liability under Part IVA of the Income Tax Act). This system of prior rulings, together with the prevention of retrospective action against those schemes declared not to be blatant tax avoidance schemes will do much to solve the anti-tax avoidance/retrospectivity dichotomy and will replace the current uncertainty in this area with some degree of stability and predictability. The Australian Democrats are united in our attitude to destroying the tax avoidance industry and the prevention of any future tax avoidance schemes arising. The line must be drawn clearly to distinguish an acceptable tax minimisation scheme from a blatant tax avoidance scheme. This legislation provides the machinery to enable that line to be drawn and for the world to know precisely where the line is drawn and to have this knowledge before a scheme is implemented. This Bill may well mark the end of the ugly era of the Australian tax bludger. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a first time. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to make two separate amendments to the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981. The Act determines the amount of general purpose payments to the States in the forms of tax sharing grants and identified health grants until 30 June 1985 and provides for the distribution of the total amount of those grants among the States. The two amendments proposed in this Bill are designed: First, to give effect to an agreement with the States, made in the context of the negotiation of the Medicare agreements, that general purpose payments to the States after 30 June 1984 would be reduced by amounts in respect of the operation of Commonwealth pathology laboratories not taken over by the States; and Second, to make provision for continuing the payment of general purpose assistance to the States after 30 June 1985 pending the enactment of new legislation to replace the existing Act. The first amendment corrects an anomaly which goes back to a decision announced by the previous Government at the May 1981 Premiers' Conference. At that time, the Commonwealth announced its intention to transfer its pathology laboratory operations to the States. As a consequence, an amount was added to the States' tax sharing grants for 1981-82 and subsequent years to compensate them for this additional responsibility. With the exception of Western Australia, however, the States have not taken over the laboratories. The result has been that since 1981 -82, the Commonwealth has effectively funded the operation of the laboratories twice, both by direct funding and indirectly through the tax sharing grants. At the June/July 1983 Premiers' Conference, the Commonwealth indicated its intention to remove the anomaly and it was agreed with the States that an appropriate adjustment would be made to apply from 1 July 1984. The Commonwealth's original proposal was for the adjustment to be made to the Medicare compensation grants specified under the Medicare agreements with each State. Some States, however, indicated that they considered the adjustment to be a matter separate from the establishment of Medicare. The Commonwealth therefore agreed that the adjustment would be made instead to the identified health grants and Medicare agreements were subsequently concluded with all States on that basis. The amount of the adjustment to be made in 1984-85 comprises the amounts agreed at the Premiers' Conference increased in accordance with the increase in the consumer price index in 1984-85. I now turn to the second amendment. The States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 requires that before payments under the Act cease on 30 June 1984 the Commonwealth shall consult with the States to review the provisions of the Act. The States have already been involved in the preparation of terms of reference under which the Commonwealth Grants Commission has commenced a review of the distribution of tax sharing grants amongst the States. The Commission's assessments will form an important element in the negotiation of new arrangements. The Commission is due to report by 30 March 1985. As consultations with the States on new tax sharing arrangements could not be commenced in detail until after that time, it seems highly unlikely that new legislation to provide for general purpose payments to the States from 1 July 1985 could be introduced into the Parliament until the Budget session of 1985. The amendment now proposed will allow the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to continue the regular payment of general purpose assistance to the States beyond 30 June 1985 until new legislation comes into force; payments may be made during the six months from 1 July 1985 with the amount payable being limited to half the amount paid to each State in the previous year. Similar provisions have been made in other legislation involving regular payments to the States including the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Act 1983. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. [COGNATE DEBATE: HEALTH INSURANCE REGULATIONS (AMENDMENT)] Motion of Disallowance Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(10.11) —I 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. Notices of motion Nos 1 and 2 are in my name, Mr President. They both deal with essentially the same subject. I therefore suggest that we have a cognate debate on the two disallowance motions, and I seek leave accordingly. Senator Gareth Evans —I accept the sense of that arrangement. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —Notice of motion No. 1 concerns the Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance 1984, which seeks to control prices of medical services in some Australian Capital Territory hospitals. I will foreshadow the other matter which is the subject of this cognate debate. It concerns some Health Insurance Regulations which prescribe the services for which fees are to be so controlled. In this debate I shall talk about both aspects of this matter, although I understand that we shall vote separately on the two motions at the appropriate time. The ordinance and the statutory rules seek to fix medical fees that may be charged to private patients in public hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory for certain medical diagnostic services. These services are prescribed under section 17(1)(a) of the Health Insurance Act. So far, the prescribed services which are identified in the Health Insurance Regulations amendment are restricted to diagnostic pathology services and to radiology, although the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has made it clear that he may well move to extend the range of services at a later date. The Opposition believes that the ordinance and the rules are both unnecessary, in that, firstly, the problem they seek to address does not exist; there is no problem. Secondly, the Opposition believes that this constitutes price fixing, with all the defects that that brings about. Worse than that, because it is unnecessary, because there is no problem, it extends the mistrust and it illustrates the contempt in which the Australian Labor Party holds the medical profession, and it signals an intention to limit private medical practice in Australia by restricting the fees which may be charged. We believe that this is a prelude to a move against other independent professions, one after the other. Our interest in this matter is for the consumers of medical services; it is for the people who visit doctors, and for whom the services are performed. We believe that the arrangements proposed under this ordinance and under the statutory rules will be bad for consumers. The fact is that there is no problem. Universally the prescribed diagnostic services in the public hospitals have been charged at or below the prescribed schedule fee. There is no example of hospital specialists charging more than the schedule fee for the services, in either radiology or pathology. Above all other fees-apart from those for medical specialists, surgical specialists, gynaecologists or orthopaedic surgeons-these diagnostic fees are the ones that have always been charged at or below the schedule. Within the Australian Capital Territory, indeed across Australia, the Government has failed to produce even one example of doctors charging more than the schedule fee. In the Australian Capital Territory, which is the subject of this ordinance and these regulations, there is no problem; there is no example; there is no practice of doctors charging more for these diagnostic and radiology services. There certainly is no general problem requiring resolution and, therefore, it cannot be for the correction of some anomaly that these rules have been promulgated or this ordinance has been brought down. It is of course to achieve some hidden agenda, and it is this which concerns us. More than that, patients are able today, and have been able for the last few months, to have all the hospital treatment, all the investigations, all the radiology and all the pathology they want or need at no cost at all to themselves, because the Medicare arrangements make it clear that everyone has the right, because they pay their Medicare levy, to go to a hospital, to take advantage of the services and not to be charged a penny. No one need be charged a single penny. Furthermore, if they decide to go as a private patient and get charged a fee in relation to whatever services they need-today we are discussing radiology and pathology-the charge to the Government, the charge to the public purse, the charge by way of payment of Medicare benefits, will be the same, irrespective of the fee charged. So the Government cannot be acting in some way to limit its own outgoings. Because there is not a problem of the radiologists or pathologists charging more than the schedule fee, what has happened and what has been happening can have no effect on the public revenue or upon patients. The medical profession is an honourable profession and the practitioners of radiology and pathology in the Australian Capital Territory, as elsewhere, have a great sense of public duty and fair play. That is one of the reasons there has been no problem. They have worked within the rules, and they have done so assiduously and continuously. So, what is the problem to which the solution is addressed? The answer is that there is no problem. The Government has decided to move to impose this control, an action with no effect on its outgoings, to correct a problem which does not exist and which does not affect any of the Government's financial obligations. We are forced to conclude that a political agenda is being followed-a political agenda to do with an anti-doctor move. Either the Government does not trust the medical profession, the specialists in the hospitals, the radiologists, the pathologists-and I think I hear by way of interjection Senator Primmer agreeing with me that the Government does not-- Senator Primmer —I never said a word. Senator PETER BAUME —I am sorry. The PRESIDENT —Senator Primmer is not in his right place. Senator PETER BAUME —Neither he is, Mr President. Senator Bolkus —I take a point of order, Mr President. The point we were making was that Senator Baume should declare his interests, not that we were agreeing with him. As a general practitioner he should make it clear to the people listening to the debate that he has a vested interest in this matter. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —I take up the intervention. I am interested in the comments of Senator Bolkus, who is a lawyer, and I will come back to them in a moment. I am not in practice; I have no vested interest in the matter. Of course I am a member of the medical profession. I happen not to be a general practitioner, although that is an honourable part of the profession. Senator Grimes —Hear, hear! Senator PETER BAUME —I notice my colleague Senator Grimes agreeing with that. I think Senator Bolkus does not really know what he is talking about. Maybe the Government is worried about some form of what may be called fee ambush. What do I mean by fee ambush? The Government may be worried that a person may decide to go to a doctor as a private patient unaware of the fact that that doctor will charge more than the schedule fee and that the person may become aware later that the bill he receives exceeds the schedule fee. Let us consider this question of a fee ambush because that would be a problem. I have spoken to specialists in the Australian Capital Territory and some of them have told me that they as a matter of policy believe that fee ambush is wrong, that as a matter of practice they always discuss in advance what the fees will be and that they would see some move to prevent fee ambush as being appropriate and proper. Further, I am aware that in the Canadian province of Ontario regulatory action has been taken to prevent fee ambush. The rule in Ontario is very simple. Overbilling-that is, charging more than the schedule fee -is permissible but only if the patient is advised of that fact in advance. If patients are not so advised the rules in Ontario say that the fee must be limited to the schedule fee. I have had discussions over the last day with representatives of the medical profession in the Australian Capital Territory who have told me that they consider that kind of provision to be a reasonable one and a far more reasonable attempt to resolve the problems which the Government may imagine it might be facing than to put down a blanket price control, as it is attempting to do. Doctors in the Australian Capital Territory, and indeed doctors across Australia , do not believe in ambushing the patient. They do not practise it. They believe in consumer sovereignty but they also believe in professional freedom and want to maintain it. If the Government came back to them and asked them whether they would look at the Ontario situation, which is as I have just described it a moment ago, I believe that the Government would receive from the medical profession a reasonable and positive response to that kind of proposal. I take the opportunity of this debate to say that the Government has got itself into a bit of a bind in terms of its own drafting. The argument is complex but it is worth putting and I hope the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, will follow it. I understand that section 17(1)(a) of the Health Insurance Act provides that no Medicare benefit is payable if a fee is payable to a public hospital. That has been a long-standing arrangement. However, I understand that in 1983 we added to the Act to provide that an approved agreement was needed between the doctor and the hospital before fees would be payable. Also I believe we declared that a Medicare benefit would be payable in a case where there was an approved agreement even if it would not otherwise be payable under section 17 (1)(a). That is the situation I think we got to under the legislation of last year: First, no fee is payable under section 17(1)(a) if it is payable to a public hospital; secondly, if there were an agreement in place the fee would be payable even if section 17(1)(a) stated it was not payable. Let us consider the situation we have got to. Doctors across Australia have refused to sign agreements. There are no agreements between doctors and the hospitals for the hospitals to send out bills. I think it is quite possible that section 17(1)(a) applies. In fact, in the absence of those agreements, no Medicare benefits are payable in this situation. I mention that matter because it is probably worth making sure that it does not require further attention. I come back to the motion before the Senate concerning the intrusion by the Government, by way of this ordinance and by way of these regulations which I believe are unnecessary, into private medical practice. It will threaten the quality of health care available in public hospitals. It will do this if it results in even one highly qualified pathologist or radiologist determining to leave the public hospitals-if he or she stops giving service in public hospitals and takes himself or herself off into private practice. If even one of these highly qualified people leaves to go into the private sector it will be the public hospital system that will be the loser and it will be the patients who are the losers. If the doctors I know left it would not be because their incomes would be reduced. I have already pointed this out. They are not charging above the schedule fee. They would leave because many of them are determined, as a matter of principle, to maintain themselves as independent operators and not to submit to price control. In fact, if there was price control in the hospital system and none outside it they would move as a matter of principle. I think the members of the public would be the losers. It is also a matter of fact in Australia that there are not enough radiologists or trained pathologists available to replace the very many private practitioners who at present keep the system operating as well as it does. I think the exodus of doctors from hospital service to private practice will continue if the Government continues to interfere and to restrict the way in which doctors operate and their sense of professional freedom. It will continue if the Government proceeds to limit the relationship between the provider of services and the user of services. I think if that happens, far from ensuring a universal system of health care, Labor, by introducing ordinances and statutory rules of this kind is laying the foundation for a dual system of health care-it is not a universal system as the Government thinks. The Government is moving to make more likely a dual system under which those practitioners, even if they do not earn a penny more-the actual quantum of money is not at issue-will move in order to get the freedom which they believe is theirs and which they want to maintain. I do not believe that will be in the best interests of the consumers. I think this approach is a recipe for mediocrity. It does not allow for distinction between practitioners in the market and, of course, the market place will soon determine the practitioners it values. If in fact the Government extends, by way of further statutory rules-the health insurance regulations-the services to which this price control will apply, and if it comes to include, for example, the busy surgeon, the market knows which surgeons it values and prefers and in the end, I regret to say, the market will seek to find ways to overcome this kind of price control. I think in the end the patients will be the losers. Doctors fear that governments having tied the fees to the schedule will then not play fair at the next step. They believe the Government will then freeze the schedule and will move to let inflation reduce the real value of the fees they charge. I see no reason for doctors not to believe that that is a well founded fear. It is a problem with any aggressive and unsympathetic government. The statements by many members of this Government give no confidence that the Government is not unsympathetic and not aggressive when it comes to the medical profession. This fee control is the first attempt by this Government to control the fees of any of the great independent professions of Australia. It will not be the last. This is not an issue for doctors alone. It is an issue which should apply also to lawyers and to the legal profession, to the accountancy profession, to architects, and to many other professions. Who will be next as this Government attempts to control their charges and their fees? Senator Bolkus found it desirable to intervene and interject a little while ago . I ask him and many of the other lawyers around: Will they accept the same limitation on fees for their profession? How far would they extend that? As it stands, fee control is to be applied only to the medical profession. It is a discriminatory measure and it represents the feeling of this Government towards a group which has always commanded the highest respect in the community. It is a move which is motivated, we think, by the deeply felt beliefs of the Labor Government, but it is not a proposal which is in the best interests of consumers or in the best interests of the community. I must say that the Australian Labor Party has made no secret of its contempt for the medical profession. The Hansard has been replete with terms such as 'elitist' and 'greedy' in the last few months. The only other thing I wish to say is that the Australian Democrats will have to indicate where they stand on this non-issue. I remind the Democrats again that there is no example of specialists in the Australian Capital Territory exceeding the fees. They have, as a matter of honour, worked within the schedule . This is merely an attempt, in ideological terms, to impose price control. I ask the Democrats: What is the position of their Party on price control? If they wish to impose price control, the medical profession in this case is merely a model. It is merely the first profession on which the price control is to be imposed. The providers of services in many professions want to know what the Democrats' position is. As the Democrats vote on this matter, so the lawyers, the accountants, the architects, the surveyors, the dentists and the many other individual entrepreneurs, will read the vote in terms of their own future. The negatives in the ordinance and the regulations are considerable. Having moved the motion relating to the ordinance, I urge the Senate to reject the ordinance. When I move that the regulations be disallowed, I urge the Senate to give support to that motion too. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.33) — When Senator Peter Baume first indicated that he would seek disallowance of the Australian Capital Territory Medical Services Fee Ordinance and the Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment) I must confess to being a little puzzled since, as he said, they seemed to be a non-issue. However, I am no more imbued with divine wisdom and knowledge than anybody else in this chamber, I imagine. I at first assumed that this debate was going to come on last night, when I was not going to be here, and I drafted some notes for Senator Macklin headed: 'You will have to listen to what Baume has to say by way of justification'. I apologise to Senator Baume; I did draft these notes in a hurry and did not put in the honourable senator's full title. Having done that, I said to Senator Macklin: 'Your only real response should follow certain lines'-which I then set out-'unless he produces outstanding evidence that there is a hidden problem'. So what I asked Senator Macklin to do was what I in fact have come into the chamber today to do; that is, to listen to Senator Baume's debate, prepared to hear and absorb any argument he introduces that is compelling enough to have us make a decision one way or the other on what he readily admits is a non-issue. Having listened to Senator Baume, and I was here for the entirety of his debate , it seems to me that he has not produced anything which indicates that this is an issue, that there is any hidden agenda or any hidden threat. Instead, according to the notes that I made while he was speaking, and my handwriting is not terribly good here, he has admitted that all that is being done in the ordinance and the regulation is to restrict certain things to certain diagnostic services and to radiology. However, he did go on and express on several occasions that he was concerned-and I respect his concern-because he believes it to be a prelude to moves against other occupations. He said that at the beginning of his speech and he reiterated it at the end. I can only say to Senator Baume that, of course, those will have to be taken as they come. But I point out to the honourable senator that it took a long time between a Liberal government imposing price control on another profession, namely, on pharmacists, and a Labor government imposing it on some doctors. That is a point that I do not think was made terribly clear by Senator Baume- that it is only some sections of the profession which are having a restriction imposed upon them; namely, those people who are practising, or whatever doctors do, on private patients in public hospitals. So I would have to say that I cannot understand why the Government is doing what I believe is, wittingly or not, an action which will embarrass the national body of the Australian Medical Association by attempting to force it, in a sort of third-hand way, to renege on an agreement it made with the Government and which it said, through its National President, Dr Lindsay Thompson, was to be adhered to until the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals reports when, as I understand it, both parties will have another look at the matter. From indications that I have seen in newspapers and heard from individuals, it is likely to mean that they will adhere to whatever that Committee puts forward. If Senator Baume has any doubts at all about the attitude of the AMA, I refer him to the letter dated 9 April 1984 a copy of which, as a courtesy to me, the AMA sent to me. It was signed by Dr Lindsay Thompson and was sent to all members of the AMA. I do not know whether Senator Baume is still a member of the AMA, notwithstanding the fact that he is not a general practitioner, honourable or not as that profession may be, and practising or not in his own specialty, but if he is not-- Senator Peter Baume —Yes is the answer. Senator HAINES —Right-then not only would Senator Baume have received a letter as a member of the AMA but also I presume he would have been sent a copy by Dr Thompson in Senator Baume's capacity as health spokesman in the Senate. Senator Peter Baume —And as a friend. Senator HAINES —Indeed, and as a friend I am sure. So he should have three copies which means that he ought to know that the letter catalogues what Dr Thompson calls 'the gradual retreat of the Minister'-that is, the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett-'in the face of the determination of the profession to resist '. I must say that the determination of the profession to resist certain plans that the Government originally had for it was formidable indeed and, I would say , should operate as a model to any profession which is setting out to resist unsavoury moves by a government of whatever persuasion. In that letter Dr Thompson said: At an early stage a guideline placing a ceiling on the private practice earnings of salaried doctors and limiting the earnings of private practitioners was withdrawn. Also subsequently withdrawn were guidelines laying down a Commonwealth scale of facility charges, a requirement that all accounts be raised by the hospital and that money received be handled and applied in a prescribed manner. Authority over these matters was returned to the states. With doctors stating firmly that they would not sign new contracts, the Minister announced an inquiry into private practice in public hospitals under the chairmanship of Prof. David Penington, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Melbourne. After negotiating greatly improved terms of reference the A.M.A. agreed to participate. The enquiry committee consists of three medical practitioners, one of them nominated by the A.M.A. The enquiry is expected to take at least six months. Furthermore, Dr Thompson went on to say: There is no longer pressure on doctors to sign contracts acknowledging the Minister's powers under Section 17. As a result of these concessions made by the Minister, under considerable pressure and justifiable pressure from the AMA, the two, shall we say, warring parties, held further talks. The end product of those, according again to the AMA's Federal President, was that the Minister agreed to: 1. Delete the 46 miscellaneous services-- Again I am quoting from Dr Thompson's letter- from the list of prescribed services, thus limiting the area of contention. 2. Set up a working party with the A.M.A. to prepare a joint submission to the Penington inquiry to recommend: (a) Formal consultative mechanisms between the Government and the A.M.A. on the guidelines under Section 17 (b) appropriate arbitration/appeal procedures in the event of non-agreement on the quantifiable elements of the guidelines. The Government had previously agreed to accept any recommendation of the enquiry on consultation and appeal. With no possibility of gaining any further concessions at this stage, the Federal Executive Committee of the A.M.A. agreed on April 6, 1984, to recommend to doctors that they cease industrial action. In effect, what Dr Thompson pointed out in his letter was that a position has been achieved where the unfettered powers of the Minister to dictate the terms under which doctors will provide hospital services with no avenue of appeal can now be effectively curbed by further negotiation of details along an agreed path and that, as he said, 'The onerous terms the Minister sought to impose have also been neutralised for the present'. Most importantly, however, this letter contained an extremely telling sentence or two relating to the matter before us today. At the bottom of the first page of the letter Dr Thompson wrote: The Minister has refused to budge on his one remaining guideline-that the prescribed services must be charged at or below the schedule fee. However, the refusal of doctors to sign contracts agreeing to this, forced him to make arrangements with the States to impose the condition for him. It was an empty gesture, for almost universally and for many years, diagnostic services in public hospitals have been charged at or below the schedule fee. I have agreed to recommend that this should continue pending the outcome of the Penington inquiry. I repeat for the benefit of honourable senators that last sentence which came from an honourable man who has worked very hard for his organisation and its members. He said: I have agreed to recommend that this should continue pending the outcome of the Penington inquiry. Having read that letter I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that I was surprised that Senator Baume went ahead with this action. I could only assume that he had found something awful in the ordinance and the regulation that I had missed. In fact, there is nothing untoward about it. There is nothing in there that Dr Thompson had not agreed to recommend should continue pending the outcome of the Penington inquiry. Senator Peter Baume —I think he recommended that the practice should continue, not the ordinance. Senator HAINES —That, unfortunately, was taken out of his hands by Senator Baume 's action. Had he allowed this to continue as it had continued to date there would be no problem. The only remaining regulation, the one we are debating today, imposes an already existing condition, namely that the requirement that no more than the schedule fee be charged for certain prescribed items relating to some diagnostic services and radiology should continue. There was no cause for concern and there was no opposition, as I have just indicated from this letter, coming from the AMA to the requirement that this should continue until the outcome of the Penington inquiry is made public. I certainly would have assumed that Senator Baume would have known from comments that I made in February this year that, having taken away the unfettered powers of the Minister and given them to the Parliament, which is a fairly standard practice in all legislation and departments, we would not be a party to ambush actions. I made it quite clear to Dr Repin and Dr Thompson and, indeed, to a gentleman whom I also assume is a friend of Senator Baume's-that is, John Best-that, while the Government did not try to impose anything on the medical profession that was not already existing, it would as a matter of honour-- Senator Peter Baume —Dr John Best, a real doctor. Senator HAINES —A real doctor or not, a pleasant enough fellow. I said that we would not be party, as a matter of honour, to preventing the Government from governing-the Liberals always told us when they were in government that Oppositions were not supposed to do that-providing, as I said, that it did not go outside the status quo. As every official of the AMA goes to great pains to point out, and as Dr Peter Hughes reiterated in a letter to me dated 4 April 1984, the Government has produced no examples of doctors charging more than the schedule fee in the Australian Capital Territory for such diagnostic and radiotherapy services. The Government is not asking those medical practitioners with private patients in a public hospital to do anything other than what they are already doing. Senator Baume certainly summed up the matter when he said it was a non-issue. I would go beyond that and say that what he is undertaking is not only a pointless exercise-- Senator Peter Baume —I think I said it was an issue, but a non-problem. Senator HAINES —If Senator Baume checks, he will find that he said it was a non- issue. Certainly it is a non-problem. I will not argue the semantics of it. I do see, quite seriously, that wittingly or unwittingly it will serve as an embarrassment to members of an executive who are honourable men and who stated quite clearly that, pending the outcome of the Penington inquiry, they were prepared to recommend that the existing situation continue. That existing situation relates to the charging of fees at or below the schedule fee. There appears to be no significant charging of more than the schedule fee for the prescribed items contained in the regulation. All that the ordinance seeks to do is to bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with other Australian States and that does not seem an unreasonable step. The real problem seems to lie in another issue raised by Dr Hughes in the penultimate sentence of his letter to me, the one that I referred to earlier, which states: The Government states that it wishes to prevent doctors charging more than the schedule fee, but as it hasn't demonstrated that there is a problem in this area , it clearly has another reason for such legislation. Presumably, that other reason relates to holding the schedule fee at the 1984 level for the next 100 years. If this is the case their fears should be-- Senator Walters —Is that what he says? Senator HAINES —No, that is not what he said in the letter. What he has said to me privately and what other members of the medical profession have said is that they fear that the schedule fee, covered as it is in a regulation, will be artificially restrained, that reviews will no longer be held, that there will be no increases in the schedule fee and that in five, six, seven, 10, 20 or even 100 years time, members of the medical profession will find that their incomes have been severely curtailed. If that is the case, if that is what they fear, I would have thought that their fears should have been allayed somewhat by the fact that there have been two rises in fees in the last few months, the latest of which was a 9 per cent increase announced only last week. If the AMA's real concern is that there is in existence no official or regular review of the schedule fee-I think that is a justifiable complaint on its part- all I can say is that it had seven years in which to convince the previous Government to establish the necessary machinery. Either it did not argue very persuasively or it did not make any attempt so to do. In any case it is not a matter of relevance in this debate. What is relevant is that the ordinance and the regulations that we are debating do not require any more of doctors in the Australian Capital Territory than is already required of doctors in other States . Furthermore, the regulations require nothing of doctors with private patients in public hospitals, it would appear from Senator Baume's speech and from information I have been able to glean, that the majority of them are already charging no more than the schedule fee for certain diagnostic and radiotherapy services. Senator Baume has certainly not convinced me that there is some hidden element in all of this to impose on doctors anything other than things which they have already imposed on themselves. In conclusion, all I can say is what must have been made patently apparent in my preceding comments; that is, that the Australian Democrats can see no purpose in supporting the disallowance of regulations and an ordinance which do not go outside a practice which is almost universally adopted by the people on whom they are being imposed. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.51) — Honourable senators will realise that these motions to disallow regulations made under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act and the Australian Capital Territory Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance have been on the Notice Paper for some time. I must say I am a bit surprised that Senator Baume has persisted with the motions in the light of events that have occurred in the last few months. I will briefly take up three points that Senator Baume made, points which seemed to me to be the three key points of his speech. They are three points that are frequently made in this place in the endless debates that we have on health matters. The first is the usual accusation made by Senator Baume and others that this Government has an ideological hatred of the medical profession, that it indulges in doctor bashing all the time and that it is obsessed with the medical profession in some way. Senator Walters —Would you like a few quotes? Senator GRIMES — I would have thought that that sort of interjection from Senator Walters hardly holds water. Of course, in the vigorous debates in this place and in the other place people make remarks about the activities of the medical profession. Senator Walters does exactly the same thing in regard to members of her political profession. I do not know whether she considers that that is an unusual thing to do. But I remind honourable senators that in the House of Representatives there are Dr Charlesworth, Dr Jenkins and Dr Everingham and in this place there are Senator Crowley and me, all of whom are members of the medical profession, all of whom have been in private practice, and on the other side there is Senator Baume. Senator Peter Baume —Who also has been in private practice. Senator GRIMES —He has been in private practice and a distinguished private practitioner. It is nonsense to suggest that doctors and everyone else in the Australian Labor Party are obsessed with the medical profession. Senator Baume's other argument was that this is the thin end of the wedge; that we have introduced price control, as he calls it, on this group of doctors and the next step will be controls on architects, lawyers, and God knows who else. I notice that Senator Townley is in the chamber. He must view this argument with some wry amusement in view of the fact that a government that he supported in this place introduced vigorous price control on certain aspects of the pharmaceutical dispensing industry in this country and that those price controls were left on, without allowing any increases, for a very long time. Who are the price controllers in this Parliament? I ask honourable senators to look at the record. The people who are taking the ideological approach in moving this motion are members of the Opposition, including Senator Baume. They claim that they have an ideological opposition, except in the case of dispensing pharmacists, to any sort of price control on anyone. Their argument is 'Although there is no problem'-Senator Baume says there is no problem-'you should not do it. We are ideologically opposed to it; therefore, we are moving this motion of disallowance'. As I said, the Government's concern over lack of controls or private practice rights in public hospitals has been the subject of exhaustive debates in this place and in the other place in the last few months. This concern and the proposals that flow from it, which partly concern these regulations and the ordinance, were integral to the Government's moves to legislate and give effect to the Medicare program. The Opposition, including Senator Baume and Senator Walters, have had many opportunities to express their views on the Government's proposal regarding those private practice rights. They have exercised those opportunities endlessly in this place. In March we introduced amending legislation into the Parliament as the result of extensive discussions with the Australian Medical Association and others in the medical profession due to concerns about this very problem, concerns which were expressed by those bodies. The amendments and the changes that were made effectively resulted in an agreement between the Government and the AMA that all parties should accept the current position pending the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals which is being headed by Professor Penington. I remind honourable senators that the regulations and the ordinance were before the Parliament at the time of that agreement. The AMA knew that. The regulations and the ordinance are part of the status quo arrangements which are part of the agreement with the AMA. After a long and sometimes very vigorous dispute the Government and the AMA reached an agreement which the Opposition now seeks to overturn by disallowing these regulations. In fact, on Friday of this week, the first meeting of the joint working party of the AMA and the Government is to be held to draw up a submission to the Penington inquiry under the terms of that agreement. In other words, despite months of debate and negotiation, despite substantial concessions having been made by the Government, as mentioned by Senator Haines, despite the successful passage of the legislation and the existence of an agreement between the affected parties to accept the status quo, the Opposition now seeks to place further obstacles in the path of the Medicare program. The only result which the Opposition could hope to achieve by reopening this serious and divisive issue would be to inconvenience the public who have already suffered greatly during the doctors' industrial action. Despite past differences , the real irony of this situation is that the Government and the AMA are negotiating on the nature of the amendments to the list of items which the Opposition now wants to throw out. They are negotiating now. In other words, the Government agrees. The AMA agrees. I am sure that the public agrees that they do not want to be inconvenienced any further. Negotiations are proceeding. The only people who are out of step in this whole process are, in fact, members of the Opposition. The regulation which Senator Baume is concerned about specifies the list of items for which it is intended that no more than the schedule fee will be charged. As Senator Haines pointed out, that schedule fee was increased only last week by up to 9.02 per cent in the report of the 1984 medical fees inquiry by the Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr McKenzie. That was in addition to an interim increase of 4.3 per cent which was granted in March this year. I point out that those were substantial and extremely generous increases decided by independent arbitration. There is no justification for doctors to charge more than the schedule fee. In fact, the Commissioner made special mention of the no extra claims commitment of the centralised wage fixing principles under which those increases were awarded. The Government fully endorses that view. Doctors should remember that they cannot receive the benefits of the wage fixing principles without also meeting the obligations that are attached to them. The increases came on top of recent evidence that, even in comparison with other professionals, doctors are doing extremely well for themselves. The most recent issue of the journal 'Community Health Studies' presented evidence suggesting that private medical practitioners are the highest paid group in Australia and that they had retained that position relative to many other professional groups. The Opposition's lack of knowledge and expertise in health matters is blatantly evidenced when it seeks to disallow these regulations which specify diagnostic services as those for which it is intended that a schedule fee must be charged. It is quite clear, even to some elements of the profession itself, that they are the services which most require some form of control. It is not only in this country that the professions and the Government realise that. In its evidence to the Jamison Committee of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals in 1980, the Australian Association of Surgeons said: There are cases of patients tested to the point of exhaustion for reasons entirely unknown to their principal medical attendant. There is little doubt that many of these diagnostic testing procedures represent an unwarranted invasion of privacy inflicted on the patient and many of them cause unnecessary suffering and hardship. Their cost to the community is almost inestimable. Senator Peter Baume —But, Senator, would you agree that this is part of a teaching hospital? It is not a financial incentive. Senator GRIMES —Of course I agree, but financial controls are part of the controls. Senator Baume knows that. All that Senator Baume and the Opposition can hope to achieve through these negative and obstructive procedures is, in fact, to add confusion, to harass and to inconvenience the public and generally to abort the months of effort of all concerned parties to reach an agreement on key segments of the arrangements. The arrangements will place some controls over the use of publicly funded hospitals to generate substantial private incomes. I remind honourable senators that publicly-funded hospitals in this situation generate substantial private incomes. Deficiencies in the existing private practice arrangements have been identified. Doctors generate costs in hospitals and utilise public facilities which, for services outside that hospital, they would have to provide from their own resources. There must be adequate accounting and control of those costs and the use of those facilities. Receipt of medical benefits income by staff specialists under rights of private practice provides them with an additional income above and beyond their hospital salaries. This additional income is generally accrued during the same working hours over which those salaries are payable. This double payment argument would be equally valid where the time booked and paid for sessional services to hospital patients was used by visiting medical officers for their private practice activities. It is not clear whether in all cases there is an appropriate relationship between sessions allocated and public patient workloads . It is a matter that has been of concern to all concerned with the delivery of medical services in this country. In the diagnostic areas there may be little, if any, direct specialist-patient contact. Without that patient audit-something which is of great concern to the more right wing of the ideological medical profession-there is substantial scope for generating additional services, as was mentioned in the submissions to the Jamison inquiry. In many cases, the provision of those high technology services is dependent on the investment of public funds in public hospitals and facilities in those hospitals. There is a lack of detailed knowledge even in the States about the practical outcomes of some of the arrangements in terms of the numbers of services provided, the substantial incomes generated and the use to which part of the funds are put. Some hospitals seem unable or unwilling to introduce effective monitoring or control measures because they too stand to gain from the rendering of services in that area. There is a lack of incentive for cost consciousness on the part of those doctors requesting and those providing diagnostic services. Generally, a potential for fraud and overservicing exists because of the lack of adequate administrative controls and peer review processes. For example, in many instances there is no clear point at which specialist, as opposed to non-specialist, services are required. Payments to the States for hospitals systems are made through the Commonwealth- State tax sharing arrangements. Those payments were derived from the former hospital cost sharing arrangements. It follows that the Commonwealth is, in effect, continuing to meet a substantial share of the salary costs of hospital staff. In the absence of controls over facility charges and the way in which they are applied, new equipment which may be purchased from the trust funds may, in fact, lead to an increased potential to generate additional services and revenue from medical benefits. That situation may impact on the capability of State authorities to implement the rationalisation of technological services. There are also possible conflicts of interest relating to the treatment of public versus private patients. The arrangements create inequities between States, hospitals and specialists. The restriction on earnings of full-time specialists compared with the currently unrestricted returns to visiting staff creates an anomaly which significantly affects the ability of hospitals to retain full-time staff. I remind the Senate that the concerns now being expressed by the Government are based on the findings of a number of previous inquiries-and there have been many previous inquiries-into this issue. The Committee on the Applications and Costs of Modern Technology in Medical Practice recognised in 1978 that the supply of technology services can be influenced by the basis for remuneration of the practitioners and concluded: Fee sharing arrangements between salaried doctors and hospitals in the States should be uniform and formalised at a national level, and that provision should be made for hospitals to audit services provided and revenue generated by their salaried doctors. The Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, in considering private practice arrangements in public hospitals, made the following recommendations in 1980: There should be an urgent review by each of the employment authorities of rights of private practice in hospitals with a view to limiting its scope, consistent with the underlying intent of the contract between an individual patient and a doctor. . . . steps be taken to phase out over a period of years the right of private practice for full-time salaried specialists. The inquiry also emphasised the need for greater awareness by administrators and governments, as well as doctors, of the medical value and costs of diagnostic services provided within public hospitals. In 1981 the Working Party of the National Standing Committee (Hospitals Agreement) concluded that modification of the private practice arrangements for salaried specialists was required. In particular, there was emphasis on establishing a uniform policy across Australia on the rights of private practice for salaried specialists because of the need for control over double payments, accountability of public moneys, prevention of funds being used to promote excessive recruitment advantages from other States and Territories, and support for individual States in their attempts to provide internal control. The third report of the Public Accounts Committee of the Parliament of New South Wales, in April 1982, having earlier given consideration to the exclusion of all private practice from public hospitals, recommended, firstly, that in the event of the continuation of a right of private practice for salaried specialists a uniform approach to private practice rights be adopted which would limit private practice income to, say, 20 per cent of salary. It also recommended a review of the facility charges levied on private income by hospitals to more accurately reflect the cost to the hospital of services provided to staff specialists as well as tighter controls over trust fund arrangements. It recommended in relation to visiting medical officers treating private patients that the Health Commission examine the feasibility of extending facility charges to all visiting medical practitioners and, in concert with other State governments, New South Wales sought the agreement of the Commonwealth Government to modification of medical benefits schedule fees to identify clearly a non-professional component in medical benefit fees. This report also recommended that, as a condition of appointment, all visiting medical practitioners be required to charge no more than the medical benefit schedule fee for medical services provided to private patients in public hospitals. The 203rd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts on medical fraud and overservicing, which was published in 1982, in reviewing some possible legislative reforms drew attention to a proposal to permit medical practitioners to participate in the medical benefits scheme and to have their fees subsidised by both government and funds only if they were registered medical practitioners for purposes of the Health Insurance Act. The report referred to 'a form of contractual relationship' involving the Commonwealth and these doctors. On the advantage of this approach it said: . . . breach of contract is much easier to prove, and would emphasise that medical benefits arrangements impose certain obligations on doctors to abide by the rules. Doctors should be in a position to abide by the rules. They can abide by the rules only if those rules exist. The aim of Senator Baume's efforts today is to get rid of those rules. The Government's basic view is that it has an overriding responsibility to ensure that the $2,000m in Medicare benefits paid annually is wisely and properly spent, and that the public hospital system is adequately equipped to manage the resources provided by the taxpayer. Looking at the sorts of findings I have quoted here today, and the sorts of findings which have come from many committees, I do not believe that the Government's actions can be considered to be unreasonable. Senator Peter Baume —Have you considered the section 17 matter? Senator GRIMES —I am going to answer that. The current position regarding payment of Medicare benefits for prescribed services in public hospitals is that benefits are being paid in all States and Territories except Queensland. I stress that the only State in which neither appropriate laws nor agreements and arrangements currently exist is Queensland. That raises the question about which Senator Baume expressed concern. I think the best way to clarify Senator Baume's problem is to point out that under section 17(1)(a) of the legislation, Medicare benefits are payable where there are either doctor-hospital agreements, as there are in Tasmania and the Northern Territory, or fee control legislation, as there is in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has made declarations under section 17 to enable these benefits to be paid. The only State where neither of those conditions apply is Queensland, and we know what the situation is in Queensland. So under the legislation and under the declarations by the Minister for Health, those benefits in fact can be paid. Even in Queensland the State is currently moving slowly to negotiate appropriate agreements with affected doctors. Unfortunately, it would seem at the moment that the Queensland Government has as little interest in resolving this matter as it has in meeting the health needs of the people of Queensland. All its attempts so far have been aimed at scoring cheap political points against the Federal Government, regardless of the adverse effect and hardship which may be inflicted on the people the Queensland Government purports to represent. The Queensland Government has caused problems and should realise that once again its attempts to distort and misrepresent the Medicare arrangements have been unsuccessful. Because of the Queensland Government's liking for these tactics, the Queensland people are the ones who are being forced to suffer needlessly. It disturbs me to see Senator Baume and his colleagues using that sort of tactic in this place. The Government has made several concessions to the AMA, but the current guidelines still provide for some monitoring and regulation of the exercise of private practice rights, apart from the schedule fee aspect. The disallowance of the regulations could, in effect, upset the current arrangements with the AMA and upset the current arrangements with the State governments. If the motion to disallow the Australian Capital Territory Medical Services (Fees) Ordinance were successful, the effect, as Senator Baume said, would be to remove fee control and again cause the Government to consider whether the existing declaration allowing payment of Medicare benefits could be sustained. One of the bases of that declaration was that the schedule fees were required to be charged. They were required to be charged under the legislation. It is clear from Senator Baume's remarks in a previous debate on the health insurance amendment legislation, which we passed in this Parliament not long ago , that he was generally supportive of the amendment which allowed State legislation to substitute for the individually signed agreements. Having shown his support for State legislation in that debate, he now seeks to disallow the Australian Capital Territory ordinance, which puts him in direct conflict with his argument at that stage, because this is the equivalent of State legislation. However, I suppose we have to accept that the Opposition finds itself in this position every now and again. The 203rd Report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, which I quoted from earlier, referred to a form of contractual relationship between the Commonwealth and individual doctors. I remind Senator Baume that this Committee was chaired by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It included Senators Lajovic and Watson from this chamber. Those members of the Opposition were signatories to the report that made these recommendations. We now find that those two honourable senators are in the unfortunate position of arguing against similar recommendations which this Government is attempting to implement, is implementing, and will continue to implement. We are faced with this situation: Disallowance of the regulations and the ordinance could mean a reversion to a situation where the agreed position reached between the Government, the State governments and the medical profession , represented by the AMA, could be placed at risk. Medicare benefits could be payable but not necessarily with the controls that, for all the reasons that have been outlined in this debate and previous debates, the Government believes are necessary. To my mind, given the protracted negotiations that have taken place, given the full and open debate that has taken place, given the fact that we have passed legislation to achieve what these regulations and this ordinance achieve, and given the fact that we now have peace in the area and an agreement, it is a mischievous action to persist with these disallowance motions. The basis of the accord reached with the AMA was that the status quo would remain pending the development of a joint AMA-Government submission to the Penington inquiry. That submission is being put together and a meeting is to be held this Friday. Both parties clearly would have to reconsider their positions if the ground rules under which that agreement was made were to be altered in this way by the Opposition. In relation to the Australian Capital Territory ordinance, quite frankly, it is difficult to see the Opposition's responding. Medical benefits and fees are set by an independent body. It is equitable that charges for services in public hospitals, particularly, I emphasise, where publicly-funded equipment and staffing resources are used by the doctor, are in accordance with that independently arbitrated fee level. In fact that equity inherent in this proposal is recognised by many doctors. The Government's view however-I think it is a reasonable view-is that this issue should not be left to the whim of individual cases. The regulations and the Australian Capital Territory ordinance are both clearly integral facets of the proposal to place some controls over private practice in public hospitals, a concept which has already been considered and given legislative effect by this Parliament. The Government and the AMA have given undertakings to maintain the existing situation. The major concern in all these debates has been that taxpayers' funds are spent responsibly and that patients can be reassured that some overall monitoring and control of the services they receive are being undertaken. It is of a very great concern that these publicly-funded hospitals using publicly-funded facilities, used by publicly-funded medical practitioners, by and large, assisted by publicly-funded staff should have the very moderate controls of the type we now have. The absolute basis of those controls, the ground rules, should be that the fees charged are the schedule fees which are the result of negotiation and arbitration. I reject Senator Baume's disallowance motions. I think he is being mischievous. He may just be seeking another attempt to take part in the endless ideological debates on health services we seem to have in this place. I believe he will not succeed in this process. For the sake of peace in the medical profession and in the negotiations between the medical profession and the Government, and to ensure that the Penington inquiry proceeds as normally and as peacefully as possible, I believe that these regulations and this ordinance should stand. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(11.19) — We are dealing with the potential disallowance of an ordinance and of some regulations for the Australian Capital Territory relating to health matters. I have always taken what I regard as a fairly basic outlook on any legislation; that is: Why do it if it is not necessary? Why should legislation be passed if it is not necessary? Senator Grimes did not seem to address that which I feel is the central issue before us. The fact is that not one example has been produced of doctors in the Australian Capital Territory charging more than the schedule fee for these diagnostic and radiology services that come within the precincts of these matters. Patients can have all the hospital treatment and investigations they require free, if they so choose. Nobody need pay a fee at all. Furthermore, the cost to the Government is the same whether or not a doctor charges the schedule fee. That is quite clear. Therefore, as Senator Baume mentioned, there is no problem at the moment and the ordinance and the rules are completely unnecessary. It seems to me that this is just a case of the Government in Canberra trying to get more and more control for Canberra. I am against Canberra trying to get control. It seems to be a pattern with socialist governments to try to get control over as much as they possibly can. I think this is an example of that happening. At the moment the Government is trying to intrude unnecessarily into private medical practices. As Senator Baume pointed out a few minutes ago, this could eventually alter the quality of health care available in public hospitals. If the doctors who leave the public hospitals because of the controls imposed upon them are the radiologists and the pathologists, they will be most difficult to replace because, as we all know, there is a shortage of those specialists throughout this country. They are not the type of people who will be messed around by petty government control that has proven to be unnecessary. Senator Walters, by way of interjection a little while ago, said that she had many examples of the attacks this Government has made on the doctors of this country. The fact that there are so many doctors in this Parliament points to the level of admiration, if you like, with which the public of this country regards doctors, and I believe rightly so. I believe the Government should slow down its attack on and its continual attempt to denigrate the doctors of this country or we will end up, as was suggested earlier, with a two-tier medical system, the public hospitals giving one level of service and the private system giving another. I believe the private one would give a better service. In other words, the people who go to the public hospitals would be the ones to suffer. The only reason the Government can want these regulations is as part of an attempt at long term price control of the fees of this profession. The lawyers could quite easily be the next group to anticipate this kind of price control being imposed upon them. It is quite obvious that the Canberra socialists like control and that this is a move to get more unnecessary control for Canberra. As I said a moment ago, this is the thin end of the wedge to control other professions throughout this country. These regulations and this ordinance are unnecessary and, in my opinion, they should be rejected by the Senate. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(11.24) — It is very interesting to know why we are debating this issue today. It could look as though Senator Baume has a genuine concern for the rules and regulations governing the Australian Capital Territory, but if one refers to page 1060 of Hansard of April this year one will find why we are debating this matter. My suggestion to the Senate is that Senator Baume, who questions whether he would be able to have the opportunity of bringing those regulations and this ordinance before the Senate, is actually just testing that he is able to do so. I think he has discovered that he can do it but he is not really interested in the content of the disagreement, just the fact that he can do it. In fact, he asked the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, during the committee stage of the debate on section 17 of the Health Insurance Act, questions about whether there would be confusion about the time of royal assent to the Act and whether that could happen within 12 to 13 sitting days and therefore prevent the disallowance of regulations. His question was answered by Senator Grimes first of all making clear what Senator Baume was asking. He then stated: The commencement of the Act is after the day of royal assent. Hansard then reports: 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. I think Senator Baume is today testing that those yes answers were really yes answers. I think he is determined to run through the procedure to see whether the procedural possibilities are open to him. They are. So far as a consequence we are again debating the issues that have been so well-or if not well, extensively-debated on two previous occasions. As Senator Haines so succinctly said, there is nothing new about the debate today; there is no real issue. Senator Baume is testing that he can do what Parliament has always allowed him to do and which the Government has said it was possible for him to do. He has done it. I hope he is satisfied that he has discovered that but I do not think he should be satisfied by the extra contribution to the debate. There is nothing new. We have had some criticism to the effect that every time this Government speaks it has an ideological commitment to doctor bashing. I totally reject that as one of those doctors on this side of the chamber who are not into bashing the profession. If honourable senators care to read my comments in Hansard they will see that I am inclined to speak well of the profession with some stunning exceptions to the gloss and glow of this profession. However, today we are debating the ideological commitment of the Opposition to the doctors' right to public support, taxpayers' support, for private fees with no controls on behalf of a curious argument that says that it is the inalienable right of doctors to deal directly with patients. It is a chronic furphy but I think the Opposition is beginning to buy its own rhetoric. Senator Haines has made it quite clear that there is no point, no new issue, no changed proposals and no hidden agenda. We are rerunning an old record. We have heard the Opposition argue about the point of having ordinances and regulations about existing contracts when people are already charging the schedule fee. The question may well be put: What is the point of arguing that we should not have them when that is already the case? Why were doctors so distressed about what they have already agreed to? In South Australia more than 60 per cent of doctors in this condition-that is, those who do private work in public hospitals-had signed contracts and were charging the schedule fee. What was the problem? The problem is not really about the schedule fee; the problem is not really about signed contracts; the problem is about one point of resistance by the Australian Medical Association in the face of the introduction of Medicare. It was hyped up and extended well beyond the reasonable opposition that the AMA mounted about section 17 of the Health Insurance Act. That point has already been addressed. The legislation has been amended. Even so the Opposition wants to continue running the old dog argument. There is no real issue here. There is not a problem of fee control. There is the addressing by the Government of the responsible use of the taxpayers' dollar. I draw the Opposition's attention to the remarks by Sir John Gorton. I understand that from time to time some members of the Opposition disowned Sir John Gorton, but it is true that he spent quite some time as a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. In a speech in the House of Representatives on 29 March this year Mr Snow, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, referred us to a comment by the former Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton. Mr Snow stated: Sir John Gorton said that he did not believe that any profession should be able to fix its fees at any level which appeals to it when it is supported by public money. In other words, responsible members of government from either side of this chamber would appreciate that when we have the taxpayers' dollars, public dollars, supporting private work then it is responsible for the government of the day to be able to account for those dollars and to put some reasonable guidelines and limits on them. It is not an irresponsible, interfering and grasping government but a responsible government. I made those points at length in the speech I made about this matter earlier; I do not see any need to run over them again. However, it is worth while reiterating the points made by Senator Grimes that what we have here are public facilities, public equipment, public support staff, public buildings, public administration and doctors who have been trained in their profession by public tax dollars through their university degrees and their payment for public hospital work who suddenly feel that they should not have any constraints put upon them when it comes to the private work they do in all those public facilities. I think it ought to be understood that the majority of doctors did not feel that way. They had signed the contracts. They had agreed to those terms with their State public hospitals; they had agreed that it was very responsible and reasonable to have contracts, to have a schedule fee limit, and to have some attempt to account for the private work being done in public facilities. The spokesmen for the AMA, representing, they said, some large percentage of the profession-clearly they were wrong-were the ones who said things that were in direct contradiction to what many of their professional colleagues were doing. I think that point needs to be stressed again and again. There is another very important reason why we have to have some responsible government say in all this. We hear the Opposition draw this fact to our attention quite often-that there are not sufficient public tax dollars to cover all of the things we would like them spent on. Now that the Australian Labor Party is in government it is deciding the priorities and those priorities seem to be the problem that is upsetting the Opposition. From time to time the Opposition will tell us that it is responsible to know what happens to those tax dollars. However, it seems this is not the case when we are paying them directly to the medical profession. This is a point that the Opposition simply fails to acknowledge. It is also interesting to read some of the comments from Senator Baume, who seems to fail to understand even further what goes on with hospital contracts and the funding under Medicare. On 2 April this year, as reported at page 1032 of Hansard, he stated: However, I come back to the fact that details in those contracts will not affect the payments, the outgoings, under Medicare. He queries how the payment of benefits can rise if they are fixed at 85 per cent of the medical schedule fee. He asked: . . . how can it rise, even if the fee rises? I would have thought that, if the fee rose and 85 per cent of that was fixed, of course it can rise. But more importantly the question we have to address in the area of pathology, radiology and diagnostic work in public hospitals is not the cost per unit but the number of units done. If ever there is an area that has been clearly open to the problem of overservicing it has been to do with diagnostic work in the areas of pathology, radiology and so on. An enormous amount of evidence suggests that it is not a 'good guess' that there is overservicing but that there is substantiated evidence of overservicing. In fact Senator Grimes quoted in this chamber the Royal College of Surgeons, which is not exactly an organisation which is known for its socialist views. The question of overservicing is a matter of serious consideration, not the least because those few members of the profession who have been involved in overservicing have discredited the whole profession. They have also cost the taxpayer an enormous number of dollars. It is a matter of serious consideration and we cannot just ignore it. The Opposition has argued that what it fears are contracts and schedule fees. I think what it was really talking about is a hidden agenda of a fear of price control, a fear of acknowledging that it is a responsible thing for the government of the day to have a say in what are the fees paid to professional groups. I also think the Opposition betrays a complete lack of understanding of what the conciliation and arbitration system is about. It is not about price control, but about agreements reached between negotiating partners in regard to contracts. When that agreement is reached the schedule or fees are then agreed to by both sides to that discussion before the Arbitration Commission. They are then agreed to for a certain period until further arbitration awards come before the Arbitration Commission again. The AMA seems to be composed of very good unionists when it comes to stating wants, but they seem to be less than good unionists when it comes to co-operation and participation and acceptance of the umpire's decision, although I have not heard too many AMA people complaining about the 9 per cent increase in fees awarded to them last week. I remind the Senate again of the remark of the Minister for Health, Neal Blewett. But first I refer to Senator Baume who said that the Government is going to do things to schedule fees. Senator Baume either is failing to understand, or else he is being naughty. The schedule fee is not a matter of Government intervention and control, it is a matter of arbitration. It is a fact that we have just had a decision awarding a 9 per cent increase passed down by Justice McKenzie, the Deputy Commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government has not said anything about that. The Government was one party that put evidence before that Justice. The AMA was another party. The Cabinet-- Senator Peter Baume —The Government initiates or does not initiate inquiries. Senator, you are being naughty now. Senator CROWLEY —I would like to add to my remarks but cannot because of the interjections that are now enlightening the listeners. Given that the schedule fee has been set independently and that there has been some randomness to when it is set, I will quote what the Minister, Neal Blewett, said in his second reading speech when addressing himself to section 17 of the Health Insurance Act . In his second reading speech he said: . . . the cabinet has agreed in principle to regular arbitrated review of the schedule fee, and has authorised me to enter into negotiations with the AMA to achieve this. I ask the Opposition, what more does it want? Senator Peter Baume —A result? Senator CROWLEY —The Opposition cannot accept the good word of the Government because the Opposition has been disbelieving good words and behaving dishonourably for years. In that statement of the Minister there is a clear understanding that this Government is prepared to accept that there is a need for regular and arbitrated reviews of the schedule fee. The Minister has said that he will enter into negotiation with the AMA. Those discussions are under way. If the Opposition fails to accept that, I can only measure that as a score of the Opposition's failures, not a lack of this Government's responsibility. This debate is really a rehash; it is not doing anything more than allowing us to run over the arguments that led to the introduction of Medicare and the protestations of some part of the profession after its introduction of Medicare. Further responsible discussions between some members of the profession and the Minister, Dr Blewett, and the Government have resulted in very agreeable arrangements currently in place. To move for the disallowance at this stage is only going to upset the smooth working arrangement that has finally happened since the profession realised that the Government is reasonable and responsible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.39) —Today we are debating the Medical Services ( Fees) Ordinance 1984 which in part states: Where a medical practitioner renders a prescribed medical service to a person who is a private patient in a hospital, the medical practitioner is not entitled to receive for that service any amount that exceeds the amount of the prescribed fee in relation to that service. We just heard Senator Crowley say that doctors need not be worried. She quoted from a Cabinet decision agreeing to a regular review of the schedule fee. Australians must take the Government's word and medical practitioners must accept that word as fact. I will come later in my speech to some other statements made by this Government-by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech. I will show how much notice the people of Australia should take of promises made by this Government. I have a list of such promises a mile long. First I put in perspective what we are debating here today. As Senator Peter Baume said very clearly there is no example of doctors charging private patients more than the schedule fee in Australian Capital Territory public hospitals. Both Senator Townley and Senator Baume on this side of the chamber have asked why the Government is introducing this ordinance. The Government has not got a problem. The Government does not have to legislate against a problem; so why is it bringing in the legislation? The Government is setting a precedent in order to take on all the other professions. Lawyers, accountants, dentists and all the rest are well warned that as a result of this regulation once control is established in Canberra then they will be at risk too. They had better take that on board. That is the philosophy behind the Government's regulation. We know that this Government engages in doctor bashing. Senator Crowley said: 'Never'. Senator Grimes said: 'Well, if we have done a bit, we have done it in the heat of debate and no one should really take any notice of it'. Senator Grimes knows darned well that he cannot say he has not done that because it is all recorded in Hansard. I will quote one of his comments. He said of the doctors: . . . they will make a lot of noise but they will interrupt that noise occasionally by putting their snouts in the trough of public funding. He does not doctor bash-not much! He does it only in the heat of debate in this place. Senator Tate carries on too. He assured us that all the doctors in Hobart are ripping off the system. Not just one doctor, two doctors-he is not taking a guess-but all the doctors of Hobart are ripping off the system. Senator Peter Baume —Where did he say that? Senator WALTERS —It is all in Hansard. Senator Baume will find that in the interjections. We can also find other statements in the Estimates Hansard. Doctor Crowley assured us that she was proud of the profession and that she would not do any doctor bashing. We were then talking about the amount of fraud and over-servicing in this country. That is what the Government talks about incessantly. When doctor bashing the Government talks about fraud and over- servicing. During the Estimates Committee hearing I asked the Department of Health officers whether they could give me the number of convictions, the number of cases and how much money was involved in overservicing and fraud for this financial year. The answer was: 'I will get you the amount of money involved'. The officer continued: These are suspected-- I interrupted to say: I am not wanting anything that is suspected, I am wanting hard facts of fraud and overservicing and successful prosecutions. Mr Deputy President, you will be interested to know that this financial year that has cost the Australian taxpayers $3.5m and for that amount we have four convictions. That represents nearly $1m of taxpayers money for each conviction. Senator Crowley was not satisfied with that because she said: I, unlike Senator Walters, would be very interested to know how many suspicious characters are around. What is your broader figure? She continued: How many are sniffing in the wind? Senator Crowley is not doctor bashing; not a bit! She is not interested in hard facts. She wants to know how many are sniffing in the wind. Mr Taylor, who was answering our questions, said: Perhaps I should explain the background. A total of 277 cases were listed at the end of March. I must qualify that by saying that these are simply indicators . A good many of them come from our computer system. All the computer system does is show a deviation which may or may not indicate fraud. Senator Crowley, in a very disappointed tone which unfortunately the Hansard does not indicate; said: So it does not mean a thing? Of course it does not mean a thing because when the computer throws up the deviation all it shows is that a particular doctor in a particular town might do more varicose veins than another qualified surgeon does in the same town or in a nearby town. It does not indicate that it might be his particular speciality and that particular doctor is sent cases from all over the country. These sorts of matters are not indicated on the computer, but these are the sorts of things that are thrown up as being suspicious by the Department. The cost to the community, the cost to the taxpayer, to prosecute four doctors this financial year is $3.5m. It just seems to me to be out of all proportion. Since this Government has been doctor bashing, what do we get? Let me quote the latest public opinion polls in the Bulletin, which I have quoted previously in this place. Over the years the Australian Labor Party has been doctor bashing and we now have this situation. Let me quote from a public opinion poll from the Bulletin of the profession. Who tops the list? Senator Archer —Parliamentarians. Senator WALTERS —No, Senator Archer is way wrong. It is not politicians, it is doctors, believe it or not. Over the years that the Labor Party has been doctor bashing the rating has gone from 62 per cent to 63 per cent, and now it is 64 per cent. If Senator Grimes is interested, he will find that his rating, and unfortunately, because of him, every other politician's rating, is way down to 19 per cent. We are way down at the bottom of the list while the doctors are at the top of the list. Despite the Government's doctor bashing, the people of Australia realise that doctors give honourable service and that they are members of an honourable profession. It does not seem to matter what the Government does , the doctors' rating continues to rise. The people get the service and they realise what is happening. They are the ones who are paying $3.5m to get four doctors convicted of fraud. The Government has now set up this regulation, and I will deal with the reasons why the Government is doing it. The other professions are on notice that this is the beginning of price control. I stress again that there was no evidence at all that any doctor in the Australian Capital Territory charges more than the schedule fee to private patients in public hospitals. If it is not open confrontation when it is laid down in a regulation that doctors cannot charge more, when they do not, then what is? It is nothing short of open confrontation. Senator Crowley, Senator Grimes and, indeed, Senator Haines all said it is all to do with the abuse of the tax dollar. It has nothing to do with the tax dollar . I do not know which one of them is too dumb to understand or too dishonest to acknowledge it, but it has nothing to do with the tax dollar. Patients who go to the public hospitals get all their services for nothing. If they choose to go to a private doctor, they pay and not the Government. It has nothing to do with tax dollars; the patient pays. A distortion of the truth is being perpetrated here. Today Senator Crowley was again doctor bashing and referring to over-servicing and large amounts of money. I interjected: 'How much?' She would not say, but in the Estimates Committee she mentioned a figure of $100m or $200m. The officer of the Department said: 'Senator Crowley, it is not that much. Our computer, which only shows deviation, brings up $130m'. But Senator Crowley was up $200m. My interjection was: 'What, $300m, $400m? Any advance on $400m?' The Government never ceases its doctor bashing, and Senator Crowley is well included in that. She really has not got a clue. She does not understand how the schedule fee is arrived at. The Australian Medical Association, the Government and other people make a submission to an independent tribunal. There does not have to be an agreement, as Senator Crowley said there did, between the AMA and the Government on what the schedule fee will be. There has not got to be an agreement at all. The independent tribunal brings down the decision and, whether the AMA agrees or not, that is the schedule fee. The schedule fee is struck and the doctors are entitled, because of our Constitution, to charge anything they like. The Government has relied on the States for getting around the Constitution, and this is the way it has done it. Now the Government is saying: 'We are really the State Government of the Australian Government Territory and so we will be bringing in this regulation in order to price control the doctors in the hospitals here'. The Government has attempted to circumvent the Constitution, but it has done this on other occasions. We have only to look at what the Government did to my State under the external affairs powers. The Government circumvented the Constitution and we had a situation where the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) sent in spy flight planes and told the pilots-this is written in the documents that were tabled-to be as inconspicuous as possible so that they would not worry the Tasmanians. Anyone in Australia can read that. It shows the absolute rank stupidity of this Government. Senator Crowley mentioned that doctors should be able to trust the Government. She quoted Dr Blewett as saying: . . . Cabinet has agreed . . . to regular . . . review of the schedule fee . . . Of course we will not stop the independent tribunal meeting. Let us look to see whether the Government is trustworthy and whether the people of Australia and the doctors in particular can trust the Government. I find these facts very interesting. On 16 February, Mr Hawke in his policy speech said that he would not be touching the pensioners' cheques, that he would not take money out of the pensioners' cheques. We have a very popular Prime Minister in Mr Hawke. We all know how popular he is because on every television appearance he tells us. He says that he does not know why the other 30-odd per cent do not love him too. Senator Peter Rae —Which faction is that? Senator WALTERS —We do not know which faction, but we believe they all come from Government sources. We have a situation where this wonderfully popular Prime Minister makes all the very popular announcements. On 16 February he said he would not touch the money in the pensioners' cheques. Who did he leave to tell the bad news? He left it to Mr Keating. On 19 May in his economic statement Mr Keating had to break the bad news to the population and the bad news to the over -70s. He said: 'We are going to change that a bit. We intend to introduce an income test for the over-70s'. It was Bob Hawke, the popular Prime Minister, who gave the good news. What else did he promise? Remember, he said: 'We will not touch the money in the pensioners' pay cheques'. As I have said, he said that in his policy speech on 16 February, before the election. What happened when the assets test was announced? He left that to his Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. Senator Grimes had to announce the bad news and say to the people of Australia: 'Oh, gee, we will not touch the money in the pensioners' cheques. We will just introduce an assets test'. It was left to Senator Grimes, not the popular Prime Minister, to announce the assets test. Then we had the popular Prime Minister, at the National Press Club, with all the television people and all the media there, saying: 'Senator Grimes made an awful mistake about that assets test. He really did a very bad job on it. I am going to abolish the assets test'. At the Press Club the popular Prime Minister took away the assets test and left his Minister for Social Security-who, to do him justice, did not want the assets test in the beginning-to carry the burden, left him to say to the people of Australia: 'We are going to have an assets test but it will not be that one; we did not like it. We will set up something different'. The Government has set up a committee. A headline in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald states: 'Assets: pay as you die plan'. Those are not my words; that is the headline in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald. I wonder what the popular Prime Minister will do about that? Which Minister will he blame for that one? Honourable senators can rest assured that it will not be the popular Prime Minister who takes the blame. We also have that popular Prime Minister assuring the airline pilots and the Australian Council of Trade Unions that there will not be any tax on superannuation. So we had the Prime Minister, that popular fellow, telling the ACTU that he would not put any tax on superannuation. Who did he leave it to, to give the bad news? He left it to his Treasurer, Mr Keating. On 19 May Mr Keating said: 'From tonight we will introduce a tax on superannuation'.The Prime Minister did not make that announcement, not that popular fellow; Mr Keating announced it. He left it to his Treasurer. What else do we find in the Prime Minister's policy speech? Mr Hawke, that popular fellow, also said in his policy speech: 'We will introduce tax cuts immediately we get into power'. Who did he leave it to to break the sad news? His Treasurer again. I do not know why Mr Keating keeps on supporting the Prime Minister. It was left to Mr Keating to state that the Government was not going to implement those tax cuts. It was left to Mr Keating at the National Economic Summit Conference to say: 'No, we are not going to have any tax cuts yet. We are going to have to put them off'. He did not add: 'Until the next election. We got in on this one, so we will put those tax cuts off until the next election'. It was left to Mr Keating to break the bad news that Mr Hawke's popular promise would not be abided by. Again, that popular fellow, Mr Bob Hawke, said: 'We will lift the pensioners tax threshold to $5,893 so they will not be forced to pay tax'. Those are popular statements coming from the Prime Minister. Who did he leave that to to break the bad news? Again he left it to his Treasurer. He left it to his Treasurer to say: 'Not on your life; not yet'. So pensioners, both married and single, are now paying tax on the $30 a week that they earn. While I am on the matter of tax let us have a look at the petrol price. We heard that popular Prime Minister in his policy speech say: 'We will take 3c a litre off the price of petrol'. What happened? Who was that left to, to break the sad tidings? Which Minister copped the flak this time? It was left to Mr Keating and Senator Walsh to say: 'No, we are not going to take off the 3c. Indeed, what we are going to do is index the price of petrol annually. We are going to index it automatically with the consumer price index'. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. We are all being amused and entertained by Senator Walters but I remind you that we are debating a motion for the disallowance of health regulations and a health ordinance. It is now 20 minutes since Senator Walters last made any reference to anything at all in that area. I ask you to bring her back to the point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The point of order is noted. During the debate the point was made by Senator Crowley that the medical profession could trust the promises of the Government. In that respect Senator Walters is entitled to develop cases where she thinks this is not so. I think she has probably done so fairly exhaustively and should return to the matter before us. Senator WALTERS —Not yet, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You cannot go on endlessly on that line, Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —Mr Deputy President, I cannot go on endlessly as I have only two more examples. I would like to continue. I will not, as I indicated when I commenced my speech, categorise all the occasions where we cannot trust the Government, just the ones in which I am particularly interested. We have done the petrol one; let us have a look at the health insurance rebate. On 3 March, two days before the election, Mr Hawke, that popular fellow, assured us that he would not be touching the financing of Medibank until Medicare's introduction on 1 February this year. Who was it left to, to break the sad tidings that all Australians would lose their health insurance rebate? It was left to the Treasurer at his Summit meeting. It was left to the Treasurer again to cop the flack through the people of Australia losing out. What other promises does the Prime Minister have up his sleeve? He said that he would not bring in a capital gains tax. But we note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, keeps flagging that he is the one who thinks it ought to come in. Will he be the one who cops the flack? It will be jolly interesting to see, will it not? That is why the medical profession and the rest of Australia will not trust this Cabinet decision that the Government will review the schedule fee regularly . It is no use Senator Crowley coming into the chamber quoting Cabinet decisions . They have been made publicly. We know how untrustworthy Cabinet decisions are. We have read the Prime Minister's policy speech. That popular Prime Minister made all the happy, popular decisions and left it to his Ministers to break the bad news. I come now to the Australian Democrats' contribution to this debate. Senator Haines seems to me to be completely unaware of what this debate is all about. She referred to our Government, the previous Government, bringing in price control on pharmacists. Obviously Senator Haines has not attended any of the meetings of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia because at the last one I attended it was suggested, following one of the reports, that it ought to be allowed to open up prescription costing to competition. Mr Deputy President, I can assure you that the Pharmacy Guild said: 'Not on your life; we do not want it. We want this control on prescription costs. For heaven's sake don't take it off'. For Senator Grimes and Senator Haines to say that the former Government introduced price control on pharmacists is a lot of rubbish because the pharmacists want it . The pharmacists begged us not to take it off and allow any competition. They want it; they asked for it. That is a totally different thing than to bring in regulation in a profession which does not want it, did not ask for it and certainly does not beg the Government to bring it in. Senator Haines said that a letter from the AMA states that it has agreed to recommend to doctors that the schedule fee be charged pending the result of the Penington inquiry. She just does not understand, or is so insensitive to the situation that she does not comprehend, that there is a very big difference between asking them to do something that is quite legal and demanding that they do it and legislating for it under regulation. She is completely oblivious of the difference. It is like saying to the Waterside Workers Federation 'you have not decided to do this but we will legislate to stop you,' even though that organisation has never suggested it. Can honourable senators imagine the result if that happened? I assure the Government that it would certainly know the difference if that occurred. At the moment it is pretending not to be able to see it. Senator Haines said quite clearly that all the Government was asking the medical profession to do was not to charge more than the schedule fee. That is not true. The Government is not asking the medical profession to do anything; the Government is telling the medical profession. There is a very big difference . If the Government had said: 'We notice that you have not charged over the schedule fee in any public hospital in Canberra. You have not charged your private patients over the schedule fee in Canberra so please will you continue to do that until after the Penington inquiry?' there would have been no question about it. But it did not do that. It legislated to stop something which was not occurring. That is the difference. As I said, for Senator Haines to say that all the Government is doing is asking the doctors to do something and that the former Government brought in fee control for pharmacists shows how out of touch she is with the situation in Canberra. Question put: That the motion (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator theHon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Archer, B. R. Kilgariff, B. F. Baume, Peter Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Scott, D. B. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Jessop, D. S. Bolkus, N. Jones, G. N. Chipp, D. L. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Georges, G. Robertson, E. A. Gietzelt, A. T. 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. Lewis, A. W. R. Button, J. N. MacGibbon, D. J. Foreman, D. J. Rae, Peter Childs, B. K. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.15) —I move: That the Health Insurance Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1984 No. 5 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973, be disallowed. We have had a debate on this matter. I do not intend to speak again. I indicate to the Senate that we persist in moving this motion. It has been indicated in the debate what will be the outcome and it is therefore not the intention of the Opposition to divide the Senate on it. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed from 7 May. Clause 56 (Fraudulent claims). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.16) —I move: (39) Page 21, clause 56, lines 3 to 9, leave out sub-clauses (2) and (3), insert the following sub-clauses: '(2) In any proceedings in relation to such a claim, the court may, if only a minimal or insignificant part of the claim is made fraudulently and non-payment of the remainder of the claim would be harsh and unfair, order the insurer to pay, in relation to the claim, such amount (if any) as is just and equitable in the circumstances. '(3) In exercising the power conferred by sub-section (1), the court shall have regard to the need to deter fraudulent conduct in relation to insurance but may also have regard to any other relevant matter.'. This is essentially the same amendment as the one we dealt with in regard to clause 32. It is a question as to whether the legislation should be drafted in such a way that some degree of fraud can nonetheless be discounted by the courts and the insurer be obliged to meet a claim if, in all the circumstances, it would be harsh and unjust not to do so. The way in which clause 56 was originally framed, as was the case with clause 32, arguably did not place sufficient emphasis on the need to deter fraudulent claims being made and did not place a sufficient degree of legislative focus on the undesirability of any aid, comfort or nourishment being given to fraud in any shape or form. It was arguably too loose and open-textured. With that in mind, the Government's amendment focuses quite specifically on narrowing the scope of the original clause in such a way as to make it clear, in the language of our amendment, that it applies only when 'a minimal or insignificant part of the claim is made fraudulently and non-payment of the remainder of the claim would be harsh and unfair'. There is emphasis on the quantitative smallness of the element of fraud-for example, the situation in regard to a house and contents policy when there has been a massive fire which has caused perhaps $150,000 worth of damage, and in making the claim there has been some padding of the value of a particular item of furniture or the addition of a particular item of equipment in the household which might be worth only a few hundred dollars in the total claim. The situation that is here contemplated is that a court, if it is satisfied that in the circumstances it would be unjust to refuse the insured the opportunity to claim at all as a result of that small piece of deception, can make an order. There is no obligation in any way on a court to ignore fraud. There is certainly no obligation on the court to divide the claim in some rigorous arithmetical way so that anyone whose frauds are caught up with simply gets his claim discounted by that amount. There is nothing remotely as crude as that in either the original formula or in the refined version of it that is now brought forward. It has been the product of considerable discussion within the insurance industry. My understanding is that, while the insurance industry would certainly prefer to have no such provision, it is as happy as it could be with the present formulation, on the assumption that the Government wants to meet the strong recommendation of the Law Reform Commission that some opportunity be given to an insured to stay in the field in the circumstances I have mentioned. For all those reasons, I urge that the Committee adopt this amendment as being a reasonable one in the circumstances. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.20) —The Opposition will put forward an amendment seeking the deletion of the clause, because it is the opinion of the Opposition that there is no such thing as minimal or insignificant fraud. Fraud is a deliberate act. It does not cover, for instance, the sort of example that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) gave. The example he gave is a matter of inadvertence, of somebody making a mistake and claims for something that was not in the house at the time it was destroyed. But the actions of somebody who, in the course of taking out a policy, deliberately, wantonly and knowingly makes a 'mistake' that is to his advantage and to the disadvantage of the insurer, should not be permitted at any stage of the game. I do not think there is any way that we can view fraud, true fraud, as minimal or insignificant. I cannot see how the treatment of people who commit fraud can be taken as being harsh or unfair. I am perfectly happy to admit that the example that the Attorney-General gave is not fraud; it should not be called fraud and it should not be treated as fraud. Senator Gareth Evans —We are talking about a situation in which it is deliberate , not inadvertent. Senator ARCHER —If it is deliberate, the penalty should be appropriate. But I do not believe any comfort should be given to people who are involved in a misdescription or a failure to disclose generally. I do not see how we can have a condition where fraud on the one hand can be minimal, insignificant and tolerated and, on the other, it can be criminal. If it is fraud, it is fraud. I see no reason why the insurance industry should be the pace-setter for other classes of business in the community. If we allow minimal fraud in the insurance industry, we will by implication allow minimal fraud in every other business operation in the community. I certainly would not wish to see our creating that sort of precedent. I urge the Attorney-General to reconsider this amendment, accept the Opposition 's amendment and give us an opportunity to see whether there are cases which can be specifically listed. But the Government should not say: 'Let us have open fraud', so that the insurers then have to cover this in a universal premium rating and method of operation. It does not happen anywhere else that I know of. I do not think it should happen in this regard. One of the major matters in regard to insurance is good will. We cannot have good will if we allow one side of an agreement to incur small or minimal fraud. What opportunity does it give the insurer to indulge in a little fraud? In a contract of indemnity, I cannot see how we can have insurance which is applicable only to one side of the argument. I ask the Attorney-General to tell me what the insurers will be able to do to incur their little bit of fraud to equalise the matter. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Archer, you would not be in order in moving the amendment you have foreshadowed to delete the clause. You can achieve that result by voting against the clause. No amendment of that nature would be in order. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(12.23) —It would be easy to resolve this matter if it were a simple matter of one party being absolutely right or the other party being absolutely wrong. We are talking about a situation which has arisen over many years in which insurance companies have had the opportunity to avoid their total obligation as a result of a misrepresentation on an insurance claim. Not only have they been one of the two parties to the dispute, but also they have had absolute power to resolve the dispute because it has been at their total discretion. My understanding of the insertion of this clause and, particularly, the clause as amended, and as agreed to, incidentally, by the insurance industry, is that there will now be the opportunity for an arbitrator, a court, to determine which party is right-the insurer or the insured. Frankly, I cannot see how there is a case against having arbitration in that sort of situation. I can understand that the Liberal Party of Australia has to live with big business. It has comparatively little interest in consumers, whether they be individuals or small businesses. But in this situation the insurance companies, whether they be multinational insurance companies or the smaller Australian companies-have accepted that the balance needs to be redressed, at least to a degree. That redress rests not with the individual or the company making the claim but with the court. The court will be able to determine the degree of misrepresentation and its impact on the total insurance claim. In other words, it may be a misrepresentation or even a fraudulent claim which has a very minimal impact on the total claim. The position that existed until now has been that in those circumstances the total claim could be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. Some insurance companies that have taken advantage of that have grossly disadvantaged both insured people and organisations. The Australian Democrats are willing to allow this new approach to be tried. As I indicated earlier in my second reading speech, we can see that there are possible dangers but we rely on the good sense of the courts to ensure that the dangers are not exacerbated and that the situation does not grow out of proportion. We support this clause. We do not support the Opposition's stance to have the balance remain in the hands of the insurance companies. We think that it is better for the courts to have the ability to determine who is right and who is wrong and that that is the just approach to a claim made by an insured party. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.27) —Naturally, I would like to take up one of the give-away comments that Senator Evans is so good at-- Senator Gareth Evans —Senator Jack Evans. I am no good at those at all. Senator ARCHER —Yes, I meant Senator Jack Evans. I give Senator Gareth Evans much more credit; he does his so much better. The throw-away line of Senator Jack Evans implied that comments made by me or certain other speakers in this debate were to the effect that the policy holder in the insurance business is of no concern. I would like him to come outside and tell me when we said that. The Opposition certainly does not condone the protection of crooks, which is obviously what Senator Jack Evans has in mind. I ask him to comment on the points that I raised a few moments ago, if he feels so inclined to make such comments through the Chair. Fraud is committed with a view to profit. When fraud is committed it is intended to cheat somebody at someone else's expense. Fraud is a matter of intention, not a matter of inadvertence. As far as I am concerned , insurance fraud is now one of the three biggest crimes in Australia. If we condone it and write into legislation that a little fraud is all right, fraud may well rise in the scale and be the largest crime in Australia. There is no way that the Opposition or I will condone fraud. We will not engage in an insurance debate which supports crooks of any sort. At this stage we will not condone legislation which would be a forerunner of the writing of fraud legislation of this sort into other areas of business. I see no reason why we should accept the argument that arbitration is the correct way to solve the problem. I do not see that we will get any further up the track by committing such cases to arbitration. In matters such as this, at what stage does the arbitrator say: 'That is only innocent fraud', or 'it is compatible fraud', or ' it is criminal fraud'. I cannot see that we are in the position to differentiate when fraud is a deliberate act. It is as deliberate as arson. If Senator Jack Evans is prepared to explain how he can go about saying: 'Fraud is okay, providing it is done only on Sundays', or whatever, if he can explain when the deliberate act of fraud can be condoned, I would be very much obliged. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.30) —I re-enter this debate to meet Senator Archer's earlier challenge to give precedents where fraud has, in fact, been acknowledged in appropriate circumstances as something that need not bring catastrophic consequences legally to its perpetrator. I think particularly of section 7 of the South Australian Misrepresentation Act of 1971 which contains a clause giving a court power, in relation to contracts generally , where it considers it just and equitable to do so to override a rescission for innocent or fraudulent misrepresentation. There is an academic argument, not yet resolved in the courts, as to whether that section applies to insurance contracts, but it is there in the law and it gives that arbitral role to the courts to apply the traditional principles of equity about fairness and justice. Senator Archer —Is there a definition of innocent fraud? Senator GARETH EVANS —Innocent misrepresentation. There is a distinction between innocent and fraudulent misrepresentation. One cannot by definition have an innocent fraud. One can have a fraud which is very minute in its implications by comparison with the totality of the situation. That is the context to which we are addressing ourselves. The other point I wanted to make is exactly that which I made the other day in the discussion in a similar debate on clause 32. That is that there is a very familiar precedent in insurance law for just the kind of matter that is involved here. That is under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act which overrides the insurer's capacity which he would otherwise have to avoid a life insurance contract totally on the ground of deliberate misrepresentation of a person's age . And one cannot argue that a misrepresentation as to age is not relevant to the risk that is being undertaken by the insurer. It is absolutely central to a life insurance contract. But what the law provides for-and it has been the law for a generation or more-is that a court in those circumstances can override the insurer's desire to avoid the contract entirely and apply some appropriate principle of proportionality. It is really just an extension of that that is involved here. It is important to add a number of criteria which we have tried to do with this further amendment, to make very clear the law's distaste and, indeed, the Parliament's distaste for fraud in any form. But at the same time we have tried to acknowledge that situations may arise from time to time whereby someone has foolishly sought deliberately to misrepresent some aspect of a claim. We have sought to enable the court in those circumstances to take into account the harshness and the unjustness of wiping that person out completely and to make an appropriate adjustment. That is all that is involved. There are precedents for it, and I hope that the Senate will respond sympathetically. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 57 to 59-by leave-taken together. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.34) —by leave-In relation to these clauses I move what I hope are two uncontroversial amendments: (3) Page 22, clause 58, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause: '(4) Where a contract of insurance is in force by virtue of sub-section (3)- (a) except in a case to which paragraph (b) applies, no premium is payable in respect of the contract; but (b) if a claim is made under the contract, there is payable by the insured to the insurer, as a premium in respect of the contract, an amount ascertained in accordance with the formula- A B, C where- A is the number of days in the period that commenced on the day on which the contract came into force and ended on the day on which the claim was made; B is the amount that, if the original contract had been renewed for the same period and on the same terms and conditions (including the same subject-matter and risk), would have been payable by the insured in respect of the renewal; and C is the number of days in the period of the original contract.'. (40) Page 21, clause 58, sub-clause (2), line 32, leave out '21', insert '14'. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 60 (Cancellation of contracts of general insurance). Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.35) —I move: (5) Page 23, clause 60, sub-clause (1), after paragraph (e), insert the following new paragraphs: '(f) the insurer reasonably determines that there has been an increase in the risk of the insurer for liability under the contract; (g) the insurer reasonably determines that the contract should be cancelled due to any act, omission or course of conduct on the part of the insured in relation to the subject matter of the contract; or (h) the insurer ceases to deal in or provide insurance for the type of risk provided for in the contract,'. The amendment would add three further grounds upon which an insurer may cancel a policy, all of which grounds, we believe, are completely reasonable. It would go a long way towards reasonable recognition of the rights and position of the insurer. The first area covered is where the insurer reasonably determines that there has been an increase in the risk; for instance, where it is ascertained that the insured is so using the property as materially to affect the risk. An example would be using for racing purposes a car that is insured as a private car. The insurer needs to have some protection there. The second ground is where the insurer reasonably determines that there is some act or omission on the part of the insured in relation to the subject matter of the contract; for instance, where the insured starts storing large quantities of petrol on the premises, or things of that nature. It is also an effective tool against fraud, for often insurers get information about intended arson or fraudulent claims in one way or another, and the best way to thwart the claim is to be able to cancel the policy. The third ground is where the insurers lose their reinsurance treaty and the insurer is then unable to carry the cover that is provided. It is important that insurance, being a contract that involves both insured and insurer, should have attached to it conditions that are reasonable to both. We move this amendment with a view to achieving just that. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.36) —The Opposition has moved an amendment of which there are three elements, the addition of three sub- paragraphs, each of which the Government opposes-for good reason, I believe, and not because of any dog in the manger attitude. First, it is proposed that there be a new sub-paragraph (f) enabling cancellation, which states: the insurer reasonably determines that there has been an increase in the risk of the insurer for liability under the contract. The difficulty we see about that primarily is that it creates a new and very nebulous criterion which would be quite difficult to apply in any practical context and would undoubtedly give rise to litigation, something which we are constantly told the insurance industry has been anxious to avoid in the situation. What is or what is not a reasonable determination of an increase in risk is something which, on the face of it, does not emerge with stark clarity. Perhaps it ought to be acknowledged that an increase in risk could be a quite major problem in commercial insurance, as distinct from consumer insurance. We readily acknowledge that that is the context, no doubt, in which this proposal is being put forward. It will have been noticed that by an amendment to clause 53, we have enabled regulations to be made having the effect of permitting the insurer to vary certain classes of contract. The idea would be that in that situation the insurer could then vary for change of risk. It would be inappropriate for him, in those circumstances, we would continue to argue, to be entitled to cancel the contract outright. A change in risk might well justify a variation, and certainly we have now created the machinery within which that sort of thing could occur; but cancellation is a different kettle of fish altogether and we think that that goes much too far. Senator Archer —Will the Minister especially consider the case I have mentioned, that of using a private car for racing purposes? Does he think that the insurer should still have to carry that risk? That is the sort of example I am talking about. Senator GARETH EVANS —I would not like to comment on any specific examples. That is the classic example of where an insurer could reasonably demand a massive increase in premium. My recollection of the usual cover that applies in relation to comprehensive vehicle policies is that that is one of the specific exclusions , as I recall it from the days when I last was contemplating using my car as a racing vehicle, in my early adolescence and before I had a licence. So I do not pursue that particular point any further except to say that there is a case for it in the commercial context, but not otherwise. I think that we have created machinery whereby variations might ultimately be allowable. The second proposed new paragraph that would allow cancellation states: the insurer reasonably determines that the contract should be cancelled due to any act, omission or course of conduct on the part of the insured in relation to the subject matter of the contract. What we say about that is that this already is covered, to the extent that there is any legitimacy, by the existing paragraph (d), which enables the insurer to cancel where the insured fails to comply with any provision of the contract. I do not think that one can go any wider or vaguer than that. Senator Archer —I just did not think that it covered the matter widely. Senator GARETH EVANS —What is being sought here is to introduce some certainty and clarity into an area of the law which has been traditionally very messy. Obviously, an insurer must be able to have regard to relevant conduct of the insured. Relevant conduct is that which is in breach of the terms of the contract, we would say, and that is already covered by paragraph (d). Finally, in the list of proposed new insertions, paragraph (h) states: the insurer ceases to deal in or provide insurance for the type of risk provided for in the contract . . . Again, we would not wish to allow cancellation in those circumstances. What normally happens where an insurer is getting out of a class of business is either that he winds down that class-he simply does not renew and gives sufficient notice for the insured to go elsewhere next time around-or, alternatively, if he wants or has to move out of that class of business more or less overnight, the normal practice, I understand, has been to sell the portfolio in question to another insurer. In either instance we would say that the insured ought not to be caught short by virtue of that kind of business decision by the insurer. Therefore, for what I think are intelligible reasons, which I hope will be accepted as such and as reasonable, we would reject these amendments. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.41) —These amendments were put forward with a view to trying to reduce litigation and to clarify the issues about which we are talking. To leave them out will only leave more areas open to debate, discussion , disagreement, fighting and so on. I believe that they are all valid amendments . I urge the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to consider them in his effort to try to make things clearer. It is not a matter of trying to escape anything or of winding down the risk. It is just a matter of the commercial reality of these matters and an effort to make sure that insurance is a reasonable project for both sides. Amendments negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 61 to 70-by leave-taken together. Senator GARETH EVANS —(Victoria-Attorney-General) (12.42)-by leave-I move: (41) Page 24, clause 64, sub-clause (1), line 8, after 'insurance', insert ' other than a blanket superannuation contract'. (42) Page 24, clause 64, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause '' '(4) If the policy document in relation to a contract of life insurance is sent to the insured by post, that policy document shall be deemed, for the purposes of sub-section (1), to have been received by the insured at the time at which it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post unless the insured proves that, through no fault of his own, he did not receive it.'. (43) Page 24, clause 65, sub-clause (1), line 19, leave out 'This section', insert 'Subject to sub-section (1A), this section'. (44) Page 24, clause 65, after sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: '(1A) This section does not apply where the conduct of the third party that gave rise to the loss- (a) occurred in the course of or arose out of his employment by the insured; or (b) was serious or wilful misconduct.'. (45) Page 25, clause 67, lines 23 to 25, leave out sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: (2) Unless the contract expressly provides otherwise, the insured may not recover under sub-section (1)- (a) an amount greater than the amount (if any) by which the amount recovered by the insurer exceeds the amount paid to the insured by the insurer in relation to the loss; or (b) an amount that, together with the amount paid to the insured under the contract, is greater than the the amount of the insured's loss.'. (46) Page 25, clause 67, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause : '(4) A reference in this section to an amount recovered by an insurer shall be construed as a reference to the amount so recovered less the administrative and legal costs incurred in connection with the recovery of the amount.'. (47) Page 26, clause 69, paragraph (1) (a), line 6, after 'into' insert 'or before a loss occurred'. (48) Page 26, clause 69, paragraph (1) (d), lines 11 and 12, leave out 'as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so', insert 'within 14 days after the day on which the contract was entered into or the loss occurred, as the case may be' . (49) Page 26, clause 69, paragraph (2) (a), line 15, after 'into', insert ''or before a loss occurred''. (50) Page 26, clause 69, sub-clause (2), lines 18 and 19, leave out 'if the information is given in writing as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so ', insert, 'and the information shall be deemed to have been given, if the information is given in writing within 14 days after the day on which the contract was entered into or the loss occurred, as the case may be'. (51) Page 26, clause 69, sub-clause (3), lines 21 and 22, leave out 'but at a time later than the time at which it became reasonably practicable for it to have been so given', insert 'or the loss incurred, as the case may be, but at a time later than 14 days after the day on which the contract was entered into or the loss occurred, as the case may be'. (52) Page 26, clause 69, paragraph (3) (a), lines 24 and 25, leave out 'at the time at which it became reasonably practicable for the information to have been so given', insert 'at the expiration of 14 days after the day on which the contract was entered into or the loss occurred, as the case may be'. (53) Page 26, clause 69, paragraph (3) (b), line 30, after 'into', insert 'or the loss occurred, as the case may be'. These amendments are uncontroversial. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 71 (Agency). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.43) —by leave-I move: (54) Page 26, clause 71, sub-clause (1), line 38, leave out 'or', insert 'any other document or any'. (55) Page 27, clause 71, lines 1 to 7, leave out sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: '(2) Where- (a) a person who is not an insurance intermediary acted as agent of an insured in arranging a contract of insurance; and (b) the insurer gave that person a notice, a statement, any other document or any information as mentioned in this Act, the insurer shall be deemed to have given the notice, statement, other document or information to the insured.'. (56) Page 27, clause 71, sub-clause (3), line 9, leave out 'or', insert 'any other document or any'. I think that these amendments are not to be opposed, even though the Opposition has a further amendment of its own in relation to clause 71. Amendments agreed to. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(12.44) —I move: (6) Page 26, clause 71, sub-clause (1), line 39, leave out 'does not apply' and insert ''shall be deemed to have been complied with and the information deemed to have been given before the contract was entered into''. This was deemed to be desirable because it would provide an exemption from the notification provisions where a broker acts for the insured. It is merely a drafting amendment to ensure that the words of clause 71 accurately reflect the language and provisions that it provides in the exemption. Such an amendment would ensure that there was no argument that the exemption applied as intended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.45) —The Government does not want to be too rude about what is manifestly a well-intentioned effort simply to clarify that which is already there, but I am afraid we have to say that it is both unnecessary and undesirable to go down this track. It is unnecessary because the amendment really adds nothing to the clause as it stands. It achieves exactly the same effect; that is, that one does not have to give the insured the various notices required by the Bill if the insured has engaged a broker who is acting for the insured, that is, not acting under a binder to an insurance company. That is what we are both seeking to ensure, but I would argue fairly strenuously that that is already clearly accomplished by the clause as it stands now. It is undesirable to go down the track mentioned by Senator Archer because the way in which he would wish to restate the obvious, with respect, is itself awkward and introduces a new concept. Instead of saying that the notice provisions do not apply, what he is suggesting we do is to say that the notice provisions have been deemed to have been complied with. He is introducing an artificial deeming notion which has undesirable consequences in a variety of legal ways. It being 12.45 p.m., I do not have time to spell those out. But why go around that particular circuitous bit of fancy, creating all sorts of extra legal fictions in the process, when we already have a clause which does the job neatly and succinctly? Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Minister's answer to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle on Tuesday of last week in which he denied that the Government was deferring its proposals to increase the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. I remind the Minister that, in responding to Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, he promised an announcement 'very soon', to quote his words. Is it a fact that the Government still has not finalised the legislation which for a year has been hanging over the heads of Australians approaching retirement age? Will the Government now admit that its hasty and ill-conceived mini-Budget decision was a mistake and abandon plans to change the taxation arrangements? If not, when will the legislation be brought into the Parliament so that the people of Australia will know clearly what the Government has in mind for them? Senator WALSH —I do not have the Hansard in front of me, but I do not think I promised Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle an announcement. I said that I expected there would be an announcement by the end of this week. Senator Chaney —That was last week. Senator WALSH —Yes. Last week I said that I expected, if I remember correctly, that there would be an announcement by the end of this week. Senator Chaney —You used the words 'very soon'. Senator WALSH —The end of this week is what I had in mind. Whether there will be an announcement by the end of this week, I am not sure. I will contact the Treasurer about that. As of the last time I spoke to the Treasurer about the legislation, it had not been finalised and discussions were proceeding about a couple of matters. On the final part of the question, no, the Government does not have any intention of abandoning that legislation. Naturally I do not agree with Senator Chaney's assertion that the decision was ill-conceived. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the legislation will be introduced before the next election? Senator WALSH —It is not in my control. I expect it will be. I expect it will be introduced before the end of this autumn session. Senator ROBERT RAY —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism recall the many statements made by Soviet officials condemning the United States of America for boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics? Given today's announcement by the Soviet Union that it intends to boycott the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, will the Minister reassert the Government's view that the Olympic Games should be open to all nations? Finally, will the Minister view favourably the suggestion that all future Olympic Games be held in Greece? Senator RYAN —I do remember the condemnation from the Soviet Union when the United States decided to withdraw last time. Senator Ray will be aware that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, has already expressed our Government's regret about the decision of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to withdraw its athletes from the Los Angeles Olympics. Mr Brown said: We believe the Olympic Games to be one of the greatest vehicles the world possesses to promote peace and understanding with all the athletes in the world joining together in their common pursuit of sporting excellence. Mr Brown pointed out that the Australian Labor Party, while in opposition in 1980, played a very strong part in the athletes' decision to compete in Moscow, despite the Fraser Government's strong intervention to the contrary. He went on to say that, despite all the controversy that surrounded the Moscow Olympics, they were conducted in great harmony. He said that as a gesture of good will and as a mark of respect for the extraordinary capacity of USSR athletes, Australia- one of only three countries to have competed in each modern Olympics-calls on the USSR to reconsider its decision. So it is quite clear that our Government regrets the decision and hopes that the USSR will be persuaded to do what we tried to persuade the United States to do in regard to the Moscow Olympics, that is, to allow its athletes to compete. That is very clearly the hope of this Government. The proposal that the Olympics should be held from now on permanently in Greece, of course, would be a matter for Government consideration . I will refer that matter in the first instance to John Brown and to the Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to reports in today's newspapers which suggest that the draft report of the Assets Test Review Panel chaired by Professor Gruen will recommend a single level exemption as part of the proposed assets test. Does the Minister agree that such a proposal would disadvantage those pensioners who live in particular geographic regions such as Sydney or coastal New South Wales and whose principal residence or holiday home has greatly increased in value in recent years? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I did see the report in today's newspaper, and I think yesterday's newspaper, claiming all sorts of things were going to be in the report of the Gruen Panel. It is my understanding that that Panel has not yet finished its considerations. I am to see Professor Gruen tomorrow, I think, and the Panel next week, and I understand that other members of parliament have seen them. It is my understanding that the report will then be written and submitted to the Government some time in the next two or three weeks. That being so, I do not think it is sensible or wise of me or of anyone else to comment on a report which has not been written. As for Senator Boswell's question about the hypothetical situation of a single cut-off point, I assume he means the inclusion of homes and everything else in an assets test and a single cut-off point. The proposal the Government put forward, as Senator Boswell knows, excluded the family home, as did the previous assets test which existed in this country. I would have thought that any test which had a single exclusion rate would have to be set at a very high level. However, I am certainly open to persuasion on that matter. I will look at the report of Professor Gruen's Panel when it arises and consider it with the Government, as I expect all other senators will. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. In view of the serious sewage pollution threat posed to Australia's coastline, especially to New South Wales coastal areas, will the Minister advise what assistance to the States is available or contemplated to combat this problem? Is it the case that such assistance was terminated by the previous Government shortly after it assumed office? Senator GIETZELT —Mr Uren, the Minister for Territories and Local Government, whom I represent in this place, has advised me that the Prime Minister has responded to the Minister's proposals asking that, in consultation with other Ministers, a submission on a national coastal pollution and sewage rectification program be brought forward. I understand it is contemplated that that will be dealt with in the Budget context and is intended to promote balanced development in environmentally sensitive areas such as beaches and river tributaries. It is true, as Senator Sibraa suggested, that the previous Government, some seven years ago, terminated a program that was operating and designed to assist the States and semi-governmental authorities to deal with the problems of pollution on our beaches. Of course, this Government, sensitive to those issues, is contemplating taking steps to get that program under way again. As a first step in that process an interdepartmental working party will be examining a possible five-year program funded by a mix of grants and loans and it will recommend to the Minister on the needs, the financing priorities and options and other program arrangements. I think it is understood that, in the first instance, there will be a pilot scheme in New South Wales because of the special and specific problems that exist along the coastal zone of that State, particularly in the area in which Senator Sibraa resides. That will probably receive our first consideration. Already the State Government has exhibited a great deal of interest in the proposition. Senator MASON —Does the Minister representing the Minister for Defence agree that it is now common knowledge that the United States of America is fitting the maritime version of its cruise missiles, the sea cruise, to its nuclear submarines and that nuclear warheads are standard for these missiles? Is it true that United States nuclear submarines have home-ported in Australian cities, including Sydney and Perth? Does the Minister agree that any launch facility for cruise missiles represents a prime and immediate target in time of war? Does the Government agree that a single strike by a nuclear missile on, say, Sydney would be severely aggravated and the city contaminated for much longer periods if nuclear powered ships carrying nuclear weapons were vaporised in the explosion? Is it true that nuclear powered ships, including United States of America nuclear powered ships, are not permitted in major United States city ports, such as New York and Boston? In the light of this, will the Government persist in offering home-port and dry-dock facilities to ships which probably carry sea cruise missiles and where this is not denied? Senator GARETH EVANS —In relation to the matters raised by Senator Mason, I am advised by the Minister for Defence that it is a matter of public record that the United States is undertaking a program to equip elements of its surface and nuclear powered attack submarine fleets with the long range Tomahawk cruise missile, which can be armed with either conventional or nuclear warheads. The annual report of United States Secretary of Defence Weinberger which was presented to Congress earlier this year includes the following statement: Our first operational Tomahawk missiles have been deployed in armoured box launches on the reactivated battleship New Jersey. Tomahawk is also slated for deployment aboard attack submarines, cruisers and destroyers. To move to the second part of the honourable senator's question, no United States nuclear armed or nuclear powered submarines have been home-ported in Australian cities. However, United States warships frequently make routine visits to Australian ports, primarily for rest and recreation purposes. Such visits are a tangible expression of our relationship with our principal ally. Nuclear powered warships are allowed to visit approved Australian ports only in strict accordance with detailed safety procedures designed to protect the public in the unlikely event of a reactor accident. The Minister takes the view that it is quite likely-he accepts Senator Mason's position in this respect-that in a time of conflict the surface vessels and submarines of each combatant would be regarded as prime targets by the opposing power. It is precisely for this reason that in circumstances of tension or conflict it is almost inconceivable that the vessels of either combatant would undertake port calls for crew rest and recreation purposes. I also note that the Tomahawk cruise missile to be fitted to United States vessels does not have sufficient range to attack targets in the Soviet Union from Australian waters. Concerning the hypothetical circumstances of a nuclear attack on any Australian city, it is possible that the sorts of effects mentioned by the honourable senator could occur. However, as I said earlier, it is unlikely that United States ships would make routine port visits in a conflict situation. That hardly needs to be spelt out. Finally, with reference to nuclear powered warship visits to United States ports, I refer the honourable senator to my answer to his question without notice on a related matter in the Senate on 14 December 1983, which appears in Hansard at page 3744. I will not read it into the record. I have already stated that United States ships do not home-port in Australia. In regard to dry-docking , the Minister for Defence indicated in his statement on 26 February that each request for the use of dry-dock facilities would have to be considered on its own merits, taking into account technical and safety factors and the strategic and operational circumstances obtaining at the time. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In Australia there does not appear to be any collection of data concerning the importation and use of chemicals and pesticides banned in other countries. I ask the Minister: Is it possible to make such data available? Is there a list of pesticides and chemicals registered in Australia? What are the State government responsibilities in relation to the use of such pesticides and chemicals? Senator WALSH —I am advised that there is no Commonwealth legislative authority to keep lists of pesticides and weedicides which are either banned or registered for use in Australia. Each State is responsible for administering the legislation relative to that and each State publishes a list of pesticides which are registered for that State. Typically, such a list contains several thousand entries. As to whether there is a list of chemicals which may be banned in some countries but which are available for use in Australia, as far as I know no such list exists and it is unlikely, for the reasons already indicated, that it would be held by the Commonwealth if there were such a list. Considerable publicity has been given recently to a list of six pesticides which it is claimed are banned in certain countries but are available and approved for use in Australia. Most of that group are approved and available in major industrialised countries for certain uses which are largely identical to those for which they are approved for use in Australia. While it may be technically possible, it seems to me that it would be extremely difficult to compile a list of pesticides or chemicals which may be banned in any conceivable country, there being 150-odd members of the United Nations and a few other countries which are not members of the United Nations. However, no such list is available, nor to the best of my knowledge could it be compiled from material available to the Commonwealth Government. Senator REID —I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security and it follows the question asked by Senator Boswell about reports of the proposals being considered by the Gruen Panel reviewing the assets test. Does the Minister believe that to overcome regional anomalies-I am thinking particularly of the South Coast area of New South Wales near to here; the Batemans Bay area-it will be necessary for the Government's assets test to include a leisure package along similar lines to that which was provided in the now defunct legislation? Senator GRIMES —The matter of whether an assets test should incorporate a leisure package of the type which is in the legislation now is something which I dare say will be considered by Professor Gruen and his committee. If Press reports are correct they have considered or are considering an assets test without such a package. The reason for the introduction of such a package was to cope with the situation which exists on the South Coast of New South Wales and other areas where people have holiday homes for which they frequently did not pay very much but which now cost a lot and which they consider to be extensions of their own homes. I repeat what I said earlier: The Government, will look at the recommendations of the Gruen committee. As I said in answer to Senator Boswell, to my knowledge the report has not even been written. I think we all should wait until the report is written and see what the committee actually recommends rather than rely on a series of Press reports which are of dubious worth. Senator REID —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. What would be the effect if somebody sold a holiday home between now and then? Senator GRIMES —I have said many times in this place that if people sell a holiday home or anything else and receive for that holiday home a sum of money which is in keeping with the cost of that holiday home, nothing will happen. If people spend their money on a world trip, nothing will happen. I am sorry if I misunderstand the honourable senator. Is she suggesting that under any circumstances people were not able to sell holiday homes? That was not deprivation of assets at all. I have no idea what Professor Gruen and his committee will report and there is no point in answering hypothetical questions of this type about a report which is not even written. Senator RICHARDSON —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is it a fact that the level of long term unemployment, particularly amongst the middle age male category, has not been arrested despite the strong growth in the absolute level of employment over the past 12 months? If so, can the Minister outline what initiatives the Government has taken and will be taking to boost employment for the longer term unemployed? Senator WALSH —It is a fact that the number of people in long term unemployment- that is defined as people who have been out of work for more than 12 months-has increased substantially in the last year in spite of the fact that total employment has increased by almost 200,000 and the unemployment rate has declined by almost one per cent and would have declined by more had it not been for an increase in the participation rate; that is, more people within particular age groups making themselves available for employment or being in employment than had been the case previously. I take these figures in regard to long term unemployment from the March Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force data. The number of people unemployed for more than a year has increased from 158,000 to 216,000. I am not aware of the breakdown for the middle-aged male within the total figure. However , I recall getting some information on this a while ago and noting that a high proportion of people within that long term unemployment category are middle-aged males. That is a matter of particular concern to the Government. Evidence is emerging that the long term unemployed are disadvantaged and are not competitive in getting new jobs. Amongst other things I would expect that an employer, given a wide choice between applicants, is less likely to take someone who has been unemployed for a long period than a person apparently otherwise equally qualified who has been unemployed for a shorter period or, indeed who possibly may not have been unemployed at all at the time of applying for another job. As I said, the increase in long term unemployment is a matter of great concern to the Government. As to the Government response, there is, of course, the general stimulation to the economy and the record rate of economic growth which it is expected will be achieved by June 1984 over June 1983. Real growth of the order of 10 per cent now seems likely to take place. It is difficult to do anything for the middle- aged long term unemployed males in particular but I believe it is reasonable to expect that as the Government's policies continue, and if the present rate of expansion of total employment can be maintaned, the long term unemployed, along with every other group, will be in a substantially better position to obtain employment than they have been. They will be in an immeasurably better position to re-enter the work force or employment than they would have been had the previous Government still been in office. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of the Senate to the presence in the President's gallery of the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, Mr Roger Steele. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend to Mr Steele a warm welcome to Canberra. I also observe that Mr Speaker is accompanied by Mr Guy Smith, a former Clerk Assistant of the Senate. To Mr Smith also I extend a warm welcome back to Canberra. Senator MacGIBBON —My question, addressed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, concerns reports that interim results of a survey of attitudes of young Australians have been received by the Federal Government. Is this the survey which the Minister suggested and to which she added questions concerning attitudes towards funding of government and non-government schools? What are the findings of the interim report on the funding issue? As taxpayers' funds financed this survey, will the Minister make a copy of the report available to all members of the Parliament, or does she intend that only Labor Party members will have access to this information on a very sensitive political matter? Senator RYAN —The answer to the last part of Senator MacGibbon's question is no. It is not our intention that information which is being pursued by- Senator Chaney —Who paid for it? Senator RYAN —I do not think Senator Chaney heard Senator MacGibbon's question. It is not our intention to withhold from the Parliament or the public information which has been sought by public funding. That is certainly not our intention. As to the question on interim reports, I will try to be precise as I can. It is the case that there was some briefing of some departmental officers about the very early stages of the survey. I do not think that that briefing could properly be described as an interim report. It is my understanding that it was a briefing on the very early stages of what I think researchers call the qualitative stage where they investigate possible lines of investigation for the survey. It is my understanding that there were some briefings of Special Minister of State officers and I was subsequently informed by officers in my own Department of that very preliminary work. I repeat: I do not think that that preliminary work can be accurately described as an interim report. Certainly to my knowledge there is no document relating to that preliminary briefing that could be described as an interim report. I do not think there is anything that could be made more widely available. I think the purpose of the very early briefing about the preliminary work was to assist Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd to get directions for the survey which it has subsequently carried out. The result of that survey, as has been stated many times in this chamber and during Estimates committee hearings over the last couple of weeks, is not yet available . That is the extent of the knowledge that I have about this. It may be that there is more information available through the Special Minister of State. However, it is my knowledge, and I repeat it because there seems to be a determination by the Opposition to misrepresent or misunderstand the nature of this, that there was a very preliminary briefing concerning preliminary work done prior to the design of the survey. Some officers of the Department of the Special Minister of State and some officers in my Department were briefed about that. The information I am now giving about the preliminary briefing does indeed relate to the youth attitude survey which was the subject of question to me at the Senate Estimates Committee hearing which dealt with the Department of Education and Youth Affairs and also the subject of questions dealing with the Department of the Special Minister of State at the Estimates Committee. It is that survey. There were some preliminary briefings prior to the survey being mounted. Some departmental officers from both departments were involved. That is the extent of my knowledge of it. There may be further knowledge but I do not have it. Senator MacGIBBON —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I did not want to get into a semantic argument on the differences between an interim report and a preliminary briefing. Was there any information conveyed to any Government department about the attitudes of the public towards the funding of private schools? When can we expect a final report to be presented? Senator RYAN —I do not know when the final report will be presented. Again I suggest that the question should be properly directed to the Special Minister of State. I have not had a recent progress report so I really do not know when it can be expected. I do not think it would be useful to hazard a guess. I know ANOP has proceeded with the survey. How long it will take to gather the information and process it, I do not know. However, consideration of the estimates of the Special Minister of State is still in progress. No doubt officers from that Department will be able to answer that question. As to the ground that was covered in preliminary briefings, I think that the ground covered with briefings of officers of my Department covered the youth attitudes survey in what must have been an extremely preliminary way-because no decisions have been made-and also the question of schools funding. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that the Queensland Treasurer and Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, has spent most of his working hours attacking the economic policies of the Hawke Labor Government, particularly since he seized control of the Queensland Treasury after last year's State election? After only 14 months of Federal Labor Government and more than 16 years of Bjelke-Petersen Government , can the Treasurer indicate how the Queensland economic outlook compares with that of the rest of the country and whether sustained criticism of Federal economic policy is justified. Senator WALSH —I am certainly aware of the fact that the Premier of Queensland, when he is not attacking his colleagues here, Mr Sinclair and Mr Peacock, spends most of his time attacking the Hawke Government, particularly on economic grounds. It is incongruous, to say the least, that the Premier should choose to do that. As I think even the members of the Opposition now can see, there has been a very high rate of economic growth in Australia over the last 12 months, and that rate of economic growth would have been even higher had it not been dragged down by the relatively poor performance of Queensland. Indeed, the March unemployment figures show that Queensland's unemployment rate is 0.5 per cent above the national average. It is crystal clear from that and other observations, a couple of which I will give in a minute, and from independent sources, that the Bjelke-Petersen Government has no basis at all for claiming any superior performance in the economic sphere. On the contrary, the policies of the Queensland Government are providing no economic benefits. At the same time, they are obviously associated with low standards of public service provision in that State in a number of areas. The record essentially speaks for itself, and the comment comes not only from members of this Government, who have examined the data available to us, but also from quite independent sources, including Queensland sources. For example, the Brisbane Courier-Mail, in the Business-Mail section on the first of this month, stated: Queensland's economic outlook remains grim with little hope for much improvement despite the further recovery from recession in other states. In other words, Queensland is dragging the chain. The article continued: The Queensland Confederation of Industry's latest quarterly survey of private sector performance indicates 'subdued' economic expectations for the immediate future. On the same day in the Courier-Mail, the first couple of paragraphs of an article by Brian Hale, the Finance Editor, stated: There is remarkably little economic brightness around the Sunshine State at the moment . . . in fact perhaps we should change our title to the 'Cinderella State '. The recovery from the pit of recession throughout the rest of the country in the past year does not seem to have had much impact on Queensland at all. That article appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail, a newspaper which has no connection at all with this Government and which under normal circumstances one would not expect to be even sympathetic to this Government. The record does speak for itself. The record reveals the facts and the facts are that the Queensland economy is doing badly compared with that of the country as a whole. If it were not for that poor performance by the Queensland Government the overall economic situation would be measurably better than it is now. I suggest to the Queensland Premier, if I may be so bold, that instead of attacking this Government and attacking Mr Peacock and Mr Sinclair, he ought to devote a little more of his attention to lifting his own game and ceasing to disadvantage Queenslanders to the extent that he has done in the last year, or indeed for the last 15 years. Senator COLLARD —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Communications aware that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Standing Committee on Spoken English has recommended that all its broadcasters use newspeak, ostensibly to avoid sex discrimination? Does the Minister not agree that the examples given in the ABC's radio news last Friday morning, 4 May 1984-that is, 'alderman' becomes 'alderperson', 'mankind' becomes 'humankind', 'man on the land' becomes 'rural person'-would distort the natural flow of the English language, which has a long history of the use of generic terms? As a consequence of this decision, will the works of Shakespeare and other great exponents of the English language be altered to conform with this absurd trend? Finally, bearing in mind this current preoccupation with regard to so-called discrimination, will the Minister ascertain what designation the ABC plans to give Mother's Day? Senator RYAN —The Minister for Communications has not provided me with a brief on this matter, but I do recall reading media accounts, and perhaps even hearing a radio report, of a discussion such as was referred to in Senator Collard's question. From those reports I gleaned that some committee within the ABC had discussed the use of language which is more appropriately reflective of the changes that have occurred in our society. As to what specific terms-- Senator Withers —Rubbish. Senator RYAN —Well, I suppose there are plenty of women on the land who do not like being excluded every time the rural sector is referred to. I suppose there are many women farmers who have made an enormous contribution to rural productivity in this country who do not particularly want to be excluded every time the rural sector is discussed on the ABC. But that is a separate matter. I cannot give any detailed information about Senator Collard's question, but I simply remind him, if he wants to start setting himself up as some kind of linguist or some sort of theoretician on the use and development of language, that the English language, like all living languages, changes constantly and that we no longer speak the language of Shakespeare. In fact, I would be surprised if Senator Collard would be able to understand Shakespearean English. A realistic response by institutions such as the ABC to the changes which have occurred, both in the English language and in the society in which the English language flourishes, grows and changes, is a perfectly appropriate course of action. Senator COATES —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Communications inform me what progress has been made under the scheme to provide Australian Broadcasting Corporation medium frequency radio services to isolated and underserviced communities in the five western Tasmanian centres of Rosebery, Savage River, Strahan, Waratah and Zeehan? Senator RYAN —I can inform Senator Coates that the Government is concerned that 50 years after the establishment of the ABC there are still some Australians who do not receive an adequate radio service. The Department of Communications has identified 12 areas of particular need, amongst which are Rosebery, Savage River , Strahan, Waratah and Zeehan. A proposal for an ABC FM service to serve these areas has been prepared in the Department of Communications and sent to the ABC for consideration. If the proposal is approved by the ABC it will be forwarded as soon as possible to Telecom Australia, which will carry out the construction of the service as contractor to the Department of Communications. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General, both in his own capacity and as Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Was an auction sale held at an Australian Labor Party meeting in Melbourne in November to help cover the costs of those people who went to Alice Springs to demonstrate against the Pine Gap defence facility? Were signs stolen from Pine Gap auctioned at the meeting? Was the Attorney-General invited and did he attend that meeting? What action is the Government taking to prosecute those who benefited from the proceeds of the sale of stolen Commonwealth Government property? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have some vague recollection of a point being made by the Opposition in one of its more adventurous policy-innovative moments about a sign coming from Alice Springs. I have no knowledge of the particular meeting at which signs or anything or anybody were auctioned off. In the context of the Pine Gap demonstration, to the extent that it is any of Senator Messner's business, I will endeavour to find out-- Senator Messner —It is the nation's business. Senator GARETH EVANS —To the extent that it is the honourable senator's business or the nation's business I will endeavour to find out. To the extent that it is Party business I will not accommodate him further, but to the extent that there are any issues involved about government property-- Senator Messner —You are the First Law Officer. Senator Chaney —Is the Labor Party exempt from the law? Senator GARETH EVANS —I hear the bellowings and the squeakings opposite. I have indicated that the internal affairs of the Labor Party are not Senator Messner's business, not Senator Chaney's business, nor the business of any of the other denuded purported politicians opposite. To the extent that a question has arisen , whether frivolous or otherwise, about possibly stolen Commonwealth Government property, I will endeavour to find out what the truth of the matter is and advise Senator Messner accordingly. Senator PRIMMER —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the statement made by the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Mr Arafat, as reported in the Melbourne Age of 5 May. Mr Arafat is reported as saying: What I want is peace, neither victor nor vanquished, but peace. He then proceeded to propose direct negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel under the auspices of the United Nations. Further, Mr Arafat proposed mutual recognition between a Palestinian and Israeli state. Is the Minister aware of the reported rejection of this proposal by the state of Israel? Would the Minister be prepared to use his good offices to assist the PLO peace proposal? Senator GARETH EVANS —A very full and comprehensive statement on Australia's position in relation to the Middle East and our desire for a peaceful settlement of the volatile and continuingly ugly situation there, was made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives on Monday and tabled in this place yesterday. I am not sure that there is anything further that the Foreign Minister would wish to add to that statement in response to Senator Primmer's specific question, but I will ask him, find out, and let Senator Primmer know. Senator JACK EVANS —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the latest campaign by the tobacco industry to entice children to smoke? Mr President, I have in my hand a free gift pack of 40 cigarettes-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator ask his question? Senator JACK EVANS —Yes, Mr President, I am demonstrating the point of the question. This gift pack was mailed to a 14-year-old Canberra girl who had responded to an advertisement offering free cigarettes to people who sent in the attached coupon. Accompanying the free gift pack is an offer of a free carton of cigarettes to persons who send in another coupon. Will the Government continue to allow the massive promotional activities of tobacco companies directed at enticing children to start smoking? What steps will the Government take to prevent these reprehensible practices against young Australians? Senator GRIMES —I have had my attention drawn to the advertisement and the resultant sending of cigarettes to young people. The first point I would like to make is that not only is such a practice undesirable but also in regard to 14- year-olds it is illegal in every State and Territory in this land. As far as I can recall in every State and Territory it is illegal to provide tobacco products to people under 16. If Senator Evans will provide me with details of the case I will certainly take it up with the Minister for Health to investigate what action can be taken to dissuade the company from undertaking this side of promotion. As the honourable senator will know this Government, like its predecessor, is concerned to cut down on advertising of this type which encourages people, but particularly young people, to smoke. Dr Blewett and the State Health Ministers have had several meetings, to my knowledge, concerning this subject. They have discussed whether or not legislation of the type that Senator Evans is obviously in favour of is necessary. The State and Federal governments have responded responsibly, I believe, to the almost universal, public view-I exclude Senator Elstob from this-that tobacco smoking is unhealthy and undesirable. Senator Elstob —Absolute rubbish. You speak for yourself. Senator GRIMES —I am excluding Senator Elstob; I always exclude him from this. I point out to the tobacco industry and the company in particular that sponsored this program that, if they continue to proceed in the way they are they will virtually guarantee that public opinion will demand that governments take the very legislative action which they seem to dislike so much. However, I certainly would be happy to take the matter up if Senator Evans will provide me with the details. Senator JACK EVANS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As the Minister may be under a misapprehension that it is illegal to give away cigarettes as distinct from selling cigarettes, I ask: Will the Government take steps to prevent the giving of cigarettes to minors around Australia and particularly in the Australian Capital Territory where it is my understanding that the only law is against the selling of cigarettes to minors? Senator GRIMES —I will certainly draw that anomaly in the legislation to the attention of the Minister for Health. Certainly in the State I come from the signs say that it is illegal to provide tobacco products to children under 16. I will certainly draw that matter to the attention of the Minister. Senator COOK —Has the Minister for Veterans' Affairs seen Press reports concerning Australian Vietnam veterans' claims for compensation based on the alleged effects of exposure to chemical agents in Vietnam? Is it a fact that the only avenue for compensation to Australian veterans is the repatriation disability pension? Is it also a fact that, contrary to Press reports, Vietnam veterans have been singularly unsuccessful in pursuing that avenue? Senator GIETZELT —A disability pension is granted to a veteran if he can prove that his disability or his state of health arises as a result of his war service . Of course, the difficulty for a considerable number of Vietnam veterans has been to establish that causality. They have been heartened by the decision that has been made in the United States of America in the belief that that will assist the cause of the Vietnam veterans to establish that their state of health arises out of their exposure to chemical agents. As I indicated in a reply to a question yesterday asked of me by Senator Bolkus , that United States decision relates to the use of agent orange whereas the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam established by this Government deals with chemical agents generally. The prosecution in the United States was designed to establish facts and to the extent that there has been an out of court settlement, we are not much further advanced in establishing facts about the use of agent orange. It probably will not assist us in respect of our emphasis on chemical agents, which is part of the work of the Royal Commission which is currently sitting. Of the 1,736 claims by Vietnam veterans for disability pensions for alleged chemical causes only four have been accepted by the Repatriation Commission as being related to chemical causes. It is that dissatisfaction that caused the Vietnam Veterans Association to press the previous Government and this Government-we accepted the responsibility-into establishing a royal commission. However, of those 1,700-odd cases to which I have referred, in 62 per cent of those cases the disability has been accepted by the Repatriation Commission as arising out of some aspect of veterans' service in Vietnam. I point out to Senator Cook that the Repatriation Commission is an independent statutory authority. It makes a decision based on the evidence that is available to it. In rejecting a claim the determining authorities must be satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the disability did not result from war service. So the honourable senator can see the difficulties that the determining authorities have. Chemical causation is only one of the bases on which a determining authority can arrive at that conclusion. Senator Cook further asked me whether Australian veterans, like their American counterparts, can sue their Government for negligence. That course of action does not exist in Australia. American veterans took advantage of the judicial processes in that country to initiate a class action. I understand that it is possible-the Vietnam Veterans Association will be looking at the possibility- that there is no impediment to Australian veterans suing the American chemical companies arising out of the settlement that has taken place in respect of the American veterans. However, I think that is a matter that will have to be examined in the future. As the Royal Commission has only part heard the whole question of the effect of chemical agents, I think it would be premature to come to any conclusions about causation of ill health by chemical agents. Senator KILGARIFF —I refer the Minister for Resources and Energy to the speech he delivered at last week's minerals outlook seminar in Canberra and, in particular, to the following sentence: The Commonwealth is currently examining the possibility of providing relief from the coal export duty for producers whose viability is under serious threat as a result of the present market situation. How far advanced is the Government's consideration of this matter and when does the Minister expect to be in a position to make an announcement? Senator WALSH —I am flattered that Senator Kilgariff takes so much interest in what I said at the Australian Mining Industry Council meeting last week. This is at least the second question he has asked arising from that speech. He asked what it means. I have prepared a submission on this question which will be considered shortly. I stress that, as defined in the passage quoted by Senator Kilgariff, it relates to those mines whose viability may be threatened by the existence of the levy. I expect-in case Senator Chaney quotes or misquotes me in the next sitting week I am making no promises-to be able to make an announcement within the next two or three weeks. Senator ELSTOB —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology seen the recent British report that, according to industry leaders, British companies are wasting millions of pounds by buying the wrong micro- computers for their needs? Can the Minister say whether there is evidence to show that similar problems are occurring in Australian businesses? Does the Minister consider that there are sufficient computer advisory and consumer services operating to prevent such wastage from happening within Australian businesses? Senator RYAN —Although I cannot answer Senator Elstob with any detail I am sure that my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology would love to have the opportunity to provide him with answers. I am sure he has all the information available in the world on that subject since he pursues it so assiduously so I will, with great optimism, refer Senator Elstob's question to him in the full expectation of an expert and thorough reply. Senator HAMER —Did the Minister for Resources and Energy see a report tucked away in the middle of newspapers recently about the coal mining accident in Yugoslavia which killed 31 people? Are such accidents, regrettably, very common in the coal to electricity fuel cycle? Can the Minister explain why a minor accident in the nuclear fuel cycle is front page news yet a major accident in the fossil fuel cycle is barely reported? Was the Three Mile Island nuclear power station accident front page news all around the world but was the most serious injury done to any person the rough equivalent of smoking one cigarette a month? Is it a fact that for the generation of a given amount of power one could expect more than 100 times as many deaths or lives shortened by such diseases as cancer or silicosis if the power is generated by coal rather than nuclear power? Is this quite apart from the contribution of fossil fuel power stations to acid rain and the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere- probably our most alarming long term environmental hazard? Are nuclear power stations clean in both these respects? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to a report of a coal mining accident in Yugoslavia. I understand that Senator Hamer said that at least 22 people were killed. I understand that subsequently that number was revised to 33. There was in February this year a mining accident at Kyushu in Japan in which 84 people were killed. Even though by the standards of many countries Australian coal mines are very safe, particularly the open-cut coal mines, over the last decade I am advised that 138 people have been killed in coal mining accidents in Australia. Senator Hamer asked why-this was certainly not true of the Appin disaster on the South Coast of New South Wales three or four years ago; that was certainly widely reported on the front pages-serious accidents in other parts of the world in coal mining are not reported spectacularly by the Australian media. I suppose there is a variety of possibilities. One is that anything pertaining to nuclear power gives rise to a good deal more speculation and perhaps because of its relative newness, compared with coal mining, it attracts the interests of journalists a lot more. Senator Jack Evans —And its potential for massive disaster. Senator WALSH —I was about to come to that. There is the possibility, of course, of speculation about less probable but individually more significant damage being done by nuclear accidents. I hasten to put on the record that it is not technically feasible that nuclear reactors involved in an accident would explode the way some people seem to believe they would. Much less is it feasible, as I understand some people were seriously suggesting, writing and circulating some years ago, that if a conventional TNT bomb were dropped on Roxby Downs there is so much uranium there that that percussion would start a chain reaction. Nor is it technically feasible that an accident in a power reactor would cause a nuclear explosion but it could potentially cause a number of other very nasty things. As to the relative risks of coal generated or nuclear generated electricity, the first thing that ought to be said is that there are widely varying estimates of the probabilities, due principally to the difficulty in establishing comparable assumptions and criteria. In two studies-I think reasonably authoritative studies-which have been done on this very subject-I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table showing the results of the assessments-very wide variations are shown. One is a study conducted by the American Medical Association and the other by Sir Edward Pochin in the United Kingdom. The higher estimate in total of those two tables equals the figure of 100 to which Senator Hamer has referred. I think one ought to be very careful in handling these figures because of the wide discrepancy in two serious studies of the subject but the conclusion which has emerged in those two studies-I think this is true of almost any serious assessment which has been done-is that the number of deaths from coal produced electricity per unit of electricity finally produced is higher. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- DEATHS PER 1000 MEGAWATT(E) PER YEAR (WHOLE FUEL CYCLE) Occupational Non-occupational Total Coal- Pochin U.K. 6 10 16 AMA 0.5-8 18-414 18-422 Nuclear- Pochin U.K. 1.2-1.8 0.1-0.5 1-2 AMA 0.04-1.0 0.01-0.2 0.05-1 (Figures have been rounded) Senator Chaney —I ask that the Minister table the papers from which he has quoted. The PRESIDENT —The Minister is complying with that request. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. In answer to a question on 2 November last, the Minister advised me that there were no female Commonwealth drivers in Australia but that new drivers were being recruited and women would be encouraged to apply . I now ask the Minister whether any women have yet been recruited as Commonwealth drivers. Senator GIETZELT —I recall that Senator Zakharov asked me last year about the possibility of females working in the Commonwealth driving service. I think I indicated on that occasion that 442 drivers, all of them male, were providing services to members of parliament, the judiciary, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and other government instrumentalities. I recollect that I said at the time also that no new drivers had been taken on to the staff of the Department of Administrative Services since the Fraser Government came to office in 1975 until this Government took a decision to extend the driving service and made a conscious decision to invite applications generally regardless of sex. Since my original answer, 42 drivers have been or are in the process of being recruited; 20 of them in the Australian Capital Territory in order to improve the service here; 10 in New South Wales; and four each in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. All are expected to start before the end of this month. Of this number, Senator Zakharov would be interested to know that three females have been employed in New South Wales, two in Western Australia and one in Victoria, and an additional female has been recruited in Tasmania to replace a driver who has left. The Minister, in giving me some information on this subject , reminded me that the first female Commonwealth drivers were recruited during World War II. During the war years most of the Commonwealth drivers were females , because I presume the males were involved in the fighting Services or other essential services. When those 42 drivers take their place in the system, there will be 480 Commonwealth drivers. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it true that the National Aboriginal Conference has been flooded with complaints-more than 4,000 complaints, it is reported-about the action of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, in arranging for the National Aboriginal Day Observance Committee to postpone National Aborigines Week from July to September to avoid a clash with the Australian Labor Party National Conference? It should be noted that I am not making any criticism of John Moriarty, the NADOC Chairman. Does this action by the Minister break a tradition of sticking to the July date which was established in the mid-1950s by, among others, Pastor Sir Douglas Nicholls? Has the Minister suggested any significance for the date of 14 September that he has chosen or did he pick it out of a hat? Finally, did the Minister consult any Aboriginal communities before urging the change and, if so, which communities? Is it not true that the Government's profession to consult is hollow and that this is reflected in the present flood of complaints from all the Aboriginal communities concerned? Senator RYAN —The answer to the last part of Senator Teague's question is no. I believe that this Government has engaged in more consultation and more genuine consultation with Aboriginal communities than any previous government. Certainly in areas for which I have some responsibility-the development and implementation of education policies as they affect Aboriginal people-there has been extensive and ongoing consultation via the National Aboriginal Education Committee with Aboriginal communities. To return to the main thrust of Senator Teague's question, some information has been provided to me by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding. He informed me that the National Aboriginal Day Observance Committee announced on 18 April that National Aborigines Week would be celebrated in September. A possible change of date had been under consideration for some time. As the NADOC Press release indicated, there has been growing pressure from the Aboriginal community to change the date from the depths of winter to a time when the weather in the southern parts of Australia would be milder, thus ensuring wider participation. In his Press statement the Chairman of NADOC, Mr Moriarty, said there had been a lot of discussion on this point and many Aboriginals felt September was an appropriate time to hold National Aborigines Week. The coincidence of the holding of the ALP National Conference in July may have been a factor in the Committee making the decision this year instead of next year. National Aborigines Week provides an opportunity for Australians to recognise Aboriginal culture and the contribution it makes to our nation. The Government, for its part, has agreed to provide additional funds and support to assist Aboriginals in organising the celebrations. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. Have the 4,000 people who have reportedly complained been consulted by the Minister? Senator RYAN —I have no information about the number of complaints-if, indeed, there were any-or consultations with specific individuals. I will refer the matter to the Minister to deal with as he sees fit. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate)(3.05) —I move: That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of Government Business Order of the Day No. 12, the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. I understand that this arrangement has the concurrence of both sides of the chamber. It is the intention that the debate be interrupted at 5 p.m. and that we proceed then to deal with other business as listed on the business sheet. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.05) —So that the position is quite clear to the public, I point out that the Opposition, rather than bringing on a matter of public importance or an urgency motion at this time , as it would be entitled to do under the Standing Orders, requested the Government that we consider this piece of legislation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 4 May, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(3.06) —Australian citizenship is both a right and a privilege, whether one is born to it or acquires it. There is no more important subject that we could debate in the Parliament than citizenship. There are some that are as important, but none more important. The Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984 is very important and the provisions in it are ones that deserve, and will be given, very close scrutiny by the Opposition. As the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Grimes) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) have indicated, we have agreed to a two-hour debate on this Bill this afternoon. In concert with that, we have voluntarily agreed to reduce the time of our speeches. Therefore, as I understand it senators- certainly including me-will speak for less than 30 minutes. That means that all of us will say less than we might have expected to say at this stage of the debate. I therefore give an indication to Government members about a certain matter in view of the debate that took place on this matter in the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives the Opposition was extensively misrepresented in regard to its attitude to this Bill. It was claimed that, because certain issues had not been debated, therefore, the Opposition was not interested in them. I suggest to Government senators who will speak in this debate that they do not misrepresent omissions from the debate and that they do not misrepresent the Opposition's view. The origins of these amendments lie with the Fraser Government. A review of the Australian Citizenship Act was undertaken when the Fraser Government was in office. On 6 May 1982 the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Ian Macphee, made a statement to the House of Representatives in which he gave to the House and to the public a list of proposals for change to the Citizenship Act and made a statement on the then Government's point of view in relation to a number of those proposals. That statement is still an accurate representation of the views of the Liberal Party and the National Party. If some points of issue are omitted from this debate, such as the elimination of discrimination, I refer all Government and Opposition senators to that speech, which represents our point of view, and we stand by it. However, it will be necessary for the purposes of the time constraints of this debate that I have indicated for me to concentrate, when speaking on behalf of the Opposition, on our differences of opinion. Those proposals for change which were put forward by Mr Macphee and to which I have referred led to two reports which have been tabled in this Parliament. The Human Rights Commission prepared a report on the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 in which it reported on the human rights aspects of the Australian Citizenship Act as it then stood. The proposals for change were sent for national consultation. A number of public meetings were held under the auspices of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and a report entitled 'National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship' was tabled in the Parliament in May of last year. Those two reports are basic to the debate. I do not have the opportunity in the time available to me to refer to them at any length. However, in the Committee stage, when we look at items in detail, I shall take the oportunity to refer to them. As I said, Mr Macphee's statement summarised our view well at the time, as it does now. There is no reason for us to depart from it, because it is an excellent statement. I shall quote from that speech to show what the basic objectives of that review were. Mr Macphee said: The amendments to the Act which I am suggesting for consideration are directed broadly at the four goals: firstly, to remove all discriminatory aspects which give preferential treatment on the basis of national origin, sex or marital status; secondly, to eliminate anomalies and reduce subjectivity in criteria for citizenship; thirdly, to clarify and simplify administrative requirements in the application of the Act and remove provisions which are no longer relevant; and, fourthly, to provide for independent review of decisions to deny persons citizenship. At the same time, there are a number of technical and other minor amendments which ought to be made in order to update the Act. Mr Macphee incorporated in Hansard a document which listed all the items which were proposed for change. They were the basic objectives of the change. They are the basic changes to the Act which come before us now. However, we have a difference of opinion with the Government regarding three aspects of this Bill to amend the Act. We will oppose the change in the oath or affirmation of allegiance which removes reference to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen of Australia. We will oppose the change in the standard of English required from 'adequate' to 'basic'. We will oppose the residential requirement which is at the moment three years, and which it is proposed will be reduced to two years. The Opposition supports the retention of the requirement that we swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen of Australia, in the oath or affirmation of allegiance. The Government is proposing that those who take citizenship, having migrated to this country, should not have to swear allegiance to the Queen. It is proposing that for a number of reasons. I raise with the Senate today the consequences of such a change. Those of us who were born in this country and who have our citizenship by right of birth owe allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. The Constitution makes clear where sovereignty in this country lies. It is vested in the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives. We could not support a situation wherein there was a suggestion that there are two different types of citizens in this country, those who owe their allegiance to the Queen and those who do not. There is, of course, a very large number of people who have taken citizenship in the past and who have sworn allegiance to the Queen. That oath or affirmation of allegiance stands. Nothing in this Bill retrospectively changes that. So progressively we will have a situation whereby people will have sworn different allegiances. Senator Grimes —Oh, my God! Senator MARTIN —It is a fact. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made this statement: They- that is, the Opposition- have been supported by a minority in the community which does not appear to accept the reality that Australia is now a multicultural community and also an independent nation. People will simply be asked to swear allegiance to Australia and its laws and Constitution. The two forms of the pledge, both religious and non religious, that I have proposed allow all people, whatever their view or religion, to make a full commitment of allegiance to Australia. Neither form differentiates between Australians on the basis of their attitude to the monarchy. While there may be legitimate differences of views on this issue, they should not in the Government's view, be invoked in an Australian citizenship ceremony. Mr Deputy President, I put it to you that the differences of view certainly should not be invoked in the Australian citizenship ceremony. However, by removing reference to Her Majesty the Queen, we will have institutionalised two points of view, those who have an allegiance to the Queen as the head of our system and those who do not. The Government itself has opened up that division. I disassociate myself entirely from any extremist views on this matter. The Opposition puts itself in a certain position, as did Mr Macphee in his speech on 6 May 1982. We believe that we owe allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and we will not have the nature of citizenship and allegiance diluted by way of a schedule to the Citizenship Act which will apply only to a number of people-that is, of course, perhaps the Government has something else in mind, unless it has in mind a view that Australians, at some time or other, will not have any allegiance to the Queen. The fact that the Government may have a republican intent has been raised. It was raised fairly. The reasons that were given by the Government for this very profound change simply do not cut ice. If it is part of a process, the Government ought to say so. If it wants to say: 'We believe that Australia should move towards a republic and this is one of the steps', it should say it. If that is its belief, it should say so. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, has said that he believes that ultimately Australia will be a republic. I believe that he said he thinks it is quite a good idea but he recognises that that does not have majority support in Australia today. We recognise that it certainly does not have majority support. This slide towards that point of view is one that we will not allow. If the Government wants to settle the issue it can have a referendum; it can find out. There have been public opinion polls. Let it have a referendum. Let the people decide. But let us not, in this terribly important Act, our Act of citizenship, enshrine a principle which is in conflict with the principles of citizenship and the notion of sovereignty in this country. The Minister further said: Many people genuinely wish to become Australian citizens and assume the associated rights and responsibilities as soon as possible after entering Australia. On the other hand, an estimated 1.2m non-citizen residents who have lived here for more than the present minimum residential period of three years have not applied to become citizens. The Government wishes to encourage both groups of people to become citizens. We believe that the package of measures contained in this Bill will assist those who wish to become citizens as soon as possible after settling in Australia as well as removing what many people see as the disincentives to acquiring citizenship contained in the present Act. Despite the large number of residentially eligible people who have not taken out citizenship, the number of persons applying to become citizens has increased rapidly in recent years-from 78,000 in 1981-82 to 101,000 in 1982-83. A similar rate of increase is occurring this year. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, as he does, that swearing allegiance to the Queen is a disincentive and yet talk about the increase in applications at the same time. He did not mention it, but it was mentioned later on in the debate by other speakers and he acknowledged it in his reply during the second reading debate, that 800,000 of those famous 1.2m people are British. They already owe their allegiance to the Queen. It may well be, and I would think if far more plausible, that the reason that many of those 800,000 have chosen not to take citizenship is that they have not been given sufficient incentive to do so. It is interesting that, as we have moved towards a requirement that one must be an Australian citizen to be a new enroller on the electoral roll, and as we have introduced the requirement that one must be an Australian citizen to be a member of the Commonwealth Public Service, there is now this rapid rate of increase in the taking of citizenship, which I think is excellent. Maybe they are the sorts of incentives that are necessary. One member of the House of Representatives-I am afraid I do not know his electorate-a Mr Gear, offered this novel explanation for those people: Currently, there are 1.2 million residents of Australia who could become citizens. I wonder how many of them will become citizens now we have removed that part of the oath of allegiance? that is, as the Government has tried to by this Bill- A number of United Kingdom citizens have questioned the swearing of allegiance to the Queen because they already owe their allegiance to Her Majesty as a person, if not in her role as sovereign of Australia. I suggest that they owe her allegiance because she is sovereign of the United Kingdom and not because she is a 'person' in the United Kingdom- A number of United Kingdom citizens serving in the Australian Army who have applied to become Australian citizens have expressed strong feelings at the requirement again to pledge their allegiance to the Queen. A number have said they find the requirement offensive to their commission or to their original oath of allegiance on joining the Army. I wonder whether Mr Gear found it offensive to swear allegiance to the Queen when he was sworn in as a member of the House of Representatives. As a citizen, he already had that allegiance. To enter this Parliament, he was required publicly to state and swear it. There is no difference. There is no harm, there is no offence, on a particular occasion, in taking an oath or making an affirmation swearing allegiance to someone to whom one already owes allegiance. I suggest that Mr Gear really stretched the point. Again, in the debate in the House of Representatives, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said: The declaration of allegiance made at the time that Australian citizenship is granted is, quite properly, regarded as of singular importance by many people. It incorporates three separate elements: The renunciation of former allegiance, a commitment to observe the laws of Australia and the declaration of new allegiance to Australia. There has already been considerable community discussion on this issue. There was strong support at the national consultations for wording which is distinctly Australian in character, which expresses full commitment to Australia, its laws and the Constitution, and which avoids the requirement to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. The report on the consultations makes it clear that these views were shared by people from a variety of backgrounds including holders of imperial awards and persons who expressed in other ways a wish to maintain a link with Britain. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, drew attention in May 1982 to the confusion caused to many new settlers by this aspect of the existing oath and to the resistance of many people to taking such an oath. That goes very close to misrepresenting what Mr Macphee's views were, as stated on 6 May 1982. He recognised that there was some confusion about what one was doing when one renounced previous allegiances. He said that this was an issue which would have to be addressed. He indicated that he would support a changing of the oath or the affirmation in that way, but at no stage did he indicate support for a change which took out the swearing of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Not only did he not indicate that; he specifically said that he did not support that. By lumping together all those points of view and then generally attributing them to Mr Macphee, there was some misrepresentation of the previous Government's view and specifically that of its Minister. I find the objection to a sovereign 'resident elsewhere' to be strange, particularly when it is echoed by members of the Australian Labor Party. It was, after all-and full credit to it-a Labor government which took the action which resulted in Queen Elizabeth becoming Queen of Australia. It was appropriate. So, whilst we have the notion of residence 'elsewhere', she is the head of our Commonwealth. It also conveniently overlooks the presence of the Governor- General and the various State governors who represent her in her absence from this country. It is of a piece, really, with what has happened regarding the anthem. The Government could take all heat out of the anthem question if it would only say that God Save The Queen was for vice-regal occasions, not just for royal occasions, and recognise that the Governor-General and the State governors represent the Queen and should be treated as the Queen in her absence from Australia. It is of a piece with that. It is highly indicative of the Minister's view and of how the issue has been fudged that he put out a statement on 2 May 1984 when the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the House of Representatives. His statement relevant to the removal of reference to Her Majesty the Queen, goes as follows: The significant amendments in the Bill include- inter alia- a new pledge of Australian citizenship, which can be taken in either a religious or secular form. Full stop. There is no mention of the significant change in allegiance. That is hidden. That is fudged; it is not pointed out. That is not something of which the Minister, Mr West, is proud in that proud list of achievements that he outlines in that Bill. The Opposition will also oppose the reduction of the standard of English required from adequate to basic. What does this mean? Mr Macphee, in his statement and in the material incorporated, gave an indicative point of view for the purposes of discussion of a standard of English that might be reasonably required. It is the requirements of the Australian Second Language Proficiency Rating, Speaking and Listening, Level + 1. The Minister has given no ruling on what standard the Government will bring in. When pressed on the matter in the debate in the House of Representatives, he said: I have been asked by certain members of this House and the Senate to spell out what is meant by 'basic English'. We- that is, the Government- will be very pleased to put down exactly the policy guidelines on what 'basic English' means . . . To ensure a consistency of interpretation of meaning, my Department is already developing guidelines. These guidelines will be published and made available to the public, as with other guidelines, in the citizenship handbook. It is that vagueness, that reluctance to say what the Government has decided, that has led to alarm. The Minister could so easily say that it is the ASLPR Level 1 +; or else he could say that it is the ASLPR Level 1, which appears more likely. We all know what that means. These standards are objective. Why must we wait for some guidelines which are to be issued subsequent to the passage of this Bill? Why does the Minister not state it? There are duties of a citizen which require English. Jury duty is one that has been pointed out. One of the Government members in the House of Representatives suggested that if the English standard was too low for someone who had taken citizenship to do jury duty, maybe that person ought to be exempted on the same basis as Aborigines are exempted. Is that really what the Government has in mind -that because of that change, it will make consequential changes, which will mean that different groups of citizens in this country will have different responsibilities? Reducing the period of residence required from three years to two years simply debases the currency. There is no other comparable country that grants citizenship in under three years. It is almost a new stage of the cultural cringe. It is virtually a citizenship cringe. Do we value citizenship of this country so low that we place on it lower residence standards than are required by any other country? The agreed time for my speech has expired. On behalf of the Opposition, I move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I move: At end of motion, add 'but the Senate- (a) disagrees with the Government's action in seeking to remove reference to Her Majesty The Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance; and (b) views with concern- (i) the Government's deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, (ii) the Government's overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislative proposals, and (iii) the Government's refusal to put such a fundamental change in citizenship to the people of Australia in a referendum.' Senator BOLKUS(South Australia)(3.27) —I rise to speak to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill, a Bill which constitutes a major reform resulting from wide-ranging public consultation throughout Australia. The Bill reflects this Government's commitment to equality and the national identity of all Australians. Unfortunately, the debate so far on this legislation has been marred by some objectionable attitudes from the Opposition, particularly the shadow spokesman for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Michael Hodgman. It is interesting to note at the outset that even though the shadow spokesperson representing Mr Hodgman in this place has been speaking on immigration, not once did she mention his name. She referred continually to the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Macphee. Covert and overt anti-Asian sentiments should not be given the credibility that has been given to them in recent days. They should be condemned, along with all the actions of groups such as the National Alliance, which seek to triumph through repression and violence. As I have mentioned, the current situation is nothing less than a bizarre contrast with the comments of previous Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs- Senator Martin —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. The speaker is trying to repeat a matter of public importance that arose in the House of Representatives yesterday. This Bill concerns citizenship, not immigration policies. I suggest that you bring Senator Bolkus back to the subject of the Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. However, I would ask Senator Bolkus to confine his remarks to the subject before the Senate. Senator BOLKUS —What I wish to do is to refer to the legislation, as I was intending to do before Senator Martin prematurely rose. As I have said, it was the previous Government that started this debate. In 1982 the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said: We will have discussions throughout the community all over Australia. After we go through that discussion process we will take all the feedback from the ethnic community and from the Anglo-Australian community, from the totality of the Australian community and we will put together citizenship proposals. The current Minister, I believe, has followed that process through. In doing so, he has the support of the parliamentary Labor Party, of the Australian Labor Party as a whole and of ethnic communities in this country, as well as of the Australian community in general. One hopes then that the Opposition is deeply embarrassed to be associated with the cheap political mileage that its shadow spokesman, Mr Hodgman, has attempted to take. There are an estimated 1.2 million non-citizen residents of Australia who have lived here for more than the presently required period of three years and who have not applied to become citizens. The reasons for this are varied and have been mentioned in another place. They reflect the disincentive to acquire citizenship contained in present provisions. This Government is committed to removing such disincentives. Despite the large number of people who have not taken up citizenship, the number of people applying to become citizens has increased rapidly in recent years. It is interesting to note that this increase has coincided with a greater acceptance within Australia of multiculturalism, a concept which no longer requires Australians to renounce their culture when becoming Australian citizens. Problems with family reunion were also a hindrance to people applying for citizenship. Now that people know that there is an upgraded family reunion program for migration, they feel secure in the knowledge that they may be able to bring their families with them to Australia. If they cannot do that, they feel that there is no risk in their losing citizenship of their homeland by becoming an Australian citizen. The question of the oath of allegiance has been canvassed very widely. In the national consultations it arose as a major point of confusion and concern within ethnic communities. Let me quote very quickly from the report on the oath of allegiance. The report says: . . . a predominant view emerging from the consultations was that swearing of allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere was inappropriate in Australia at its present stage of history. The report, commissioned by the previous conservative Government, makes it clear that these views were shared by people from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of imperial awards and persons who in many other ways wished to maintain links with Britain. It is a report published by the present Opposition while in government. Yet this basic issue of the oath of allegiance has been used as the basis for outrageous accusations by the shadow spokesman on immigration and ethnic affairs. He claims that this proposal is 'the first step of the Hawke socialist Government to a republic' or a result of 'the Minister listening to the socialist Left, the republican rabble'. The concept of bipartisan immigration and ethnic affairs policies has been tossed comprehensively out of the window by the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. His inaccurate comments are at least ironic. Moreover, one could say that they do not represent the truth. The new pledge of Australian citizenship proposed in the legislation can be taken either by oath or by affirmation. Both options involved renunciation of former allegiance, a commitment to observe the laws of Australia, as mentioned by Senator Martin, and a declaration of new allegiance to Australia. There is within the proposal absolutely nothing that threatens Australia's constitutionally enshrined links with the British monarchy. When Australia chooses to become a republic, it will not be through this piece of legislation or these sorts of minor measures. It will require fundamental constitutional change, something which is known very well to the Opposition and to which it does not choose to give adequate recognition. Another important provision of the report which has been mentioned and which will make citizenship easier is the reduction of the qualifying period from three years to two years. In fact there was some demand in the community for the period to be reduced to six months. I believe the provision adopted by the Government and recommended by the report is a good compromise for all interests. Another aspect of the legislation which should be highlighted because it has caused many problems is that provision which will allow for appeals on a number of grounds to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the denial of a grant of citizenship. This proposal is in line with modern provisions for administrative review in most areas of government and in fact contrasts very gravely with procedures that used to take place before the advent of the Whitlam Government in 1972. At that time people were prevented from getting Australian citizenship for no other reason than their political opposition to the government of the day. Those cases in those days have been documented fairly widely, but they should be remembered when looking at the reform proposed by this Government. Senator Martin —It was reform we proposed too. Senator BOLKUS —There are other reforms that came out of the proposals of those opposite which they have not adopted now. Another area where inconsistencies have occurred is the requirement for adequate knowledge of the English language. I have had in my office a number of people who have worked in Australia, who have contributed to Australia and who have paid taxation in Australia for periods of up to 20 years, but who have been denied Australian citizenship because they have not been able to meet the test laid down by a departmental officer on a particular day. The Government is adopting the recommendations of the national consultations and lowering the required standard. As Senator Martin suggested, clarification may very well be needed, but I am sure that that could very well come through in the course of this debate. The Government has been accused in this debate of being anti-British. It has been so accused in the House of Representatives by a number of spokespeople for the Opposition. It has been accused of such action for a number of reasons. I wish to go briefly through these. One is that at the moment the Government is seeking to remove the automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship by British subjects who were resident in or had close connection with Australia in 1949. It is accepted that when the Australian Citizenship Act came into force it was entirely reasonable to expect it to include this sort of provision. However, 34 years later one would imagine that those sorts of transitional provisions were irrelevant and outdated. But that has not stopped the histrionic jumping up and down by Mr Hodgman. Australia is now the only country in the world to continue to use the concept of British subject status in preference to its own nationality. Those of the like of Mr Hodgman wish to maintain a semi-colonial status. Senator Martin —That is not true. Senator BOLKUS —Read the Hansard of the House of Representatives, then tell me whether that is true. It is the same sort of sycophantic approach that was endemic in Australia in the 1950s when we involved ourselves obsequiously in those tests at Maralinga, the horrors of which are currently coming to light. That sort of blind loyalty has caused serious problems for this country and continue to do so. Another point I raise is in respect of the Big Brother Movement, which the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been running a case for, especially over the last couple of days. What has been the position of the Big Brother Movement? It is an organisation-- Senator Martin —That has nothing to do with immigration. Senator BOLKUS —Senator Martin thinks that the Big Brother Movement has nothing to do with immigration. Senator Martin —What you are saying has nothing to do with this Bill, which is the Australian Citizenship Bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! Senator Bolkus, would you please try to keep your remarks to the topic before the Senate today which is not a debate that took place in the House of Representatives at another time but the Australian Citizenship Bill. Senator BOLKUS —Madam Acting Deputy President, I am referring to criticisms made of the Bill by the Opposition in both this place and another place. One of the major criticisms made of the Government through criticism of this legislation is that it is anti-British. I am attempting to go through the debate to show that in fact this Government is nothing of the like. If I can go on that basis- Senator Martin —You take the consequences of starting this. Senator BOLKUS —I am told that I take the consequences for starting this type of debate. This type of debate has been going on for six months. For the sake of some sort of sanity in this place, let me move on from the Big Brother Movement. I will not discuss the privileged position that it has had. I will go on to talk about other aspects of the Bill and then turn once again to aspects of the debate which I think are vitally important when discussing something as vitally as important as citizenship. The final point I wish to make on the specific provisions of the legislation is that the Bill proposed by the Government-and this should be acknowledged by the Opposition-will move to delete existing discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. That is something that should be noted by honourable senators when passing this legislation. At the moment mothers do not have the same rights as fathers in determining their children's citizenship. The amendments proposed by the Government will place both parents on equal footing. I think these provisions are long overdue and welcome. As I have said, there are aspects of the debate that need to be highlighted. I wish to look at the charge that the Australian Government has been anti-British in its approach through this legislation and elsewhere. What I wish to do, quite dispassionately, is look at the figures and put them on the record for the sake of rational debate. The charge has been made that we as a government are being anti-British and anti-European in our migrant intake. It should be noted, however, that in the period from 1978-79 to the current financial year the number of people coming from Britain to Australia has increased from 25.8 per cent of the overall intake to 31.2 per cent. That constitutes an increase of 5.6 per cent of the total migrant intake, compared with the increase in the Asian component, a component which includes migrants from both Cyprus and the Middle East, of 3.4 per cent. There has been a 66 per cent greater increase in migrants from Britain. I notice that over the same period there has been a decrease from somewhere in the vicinity of 16,000 per annum to 10,000 per annum in the number of refugees from Indo-China. That is one of the first points we should note in respect of this alleged bias against British and European migration. We should also look at some of the other aspects of this debate but in doing so I must sadly say that in my opinion the frenetic behaviour-unwarranted behaviour-that has been beaten up in the last few days over this legislation has been very much without substance. We have had the accusation that I am starting this part of the debate . It is the behaviour of the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Hodgman, who in this instance can be classed as nothing less than a racial pyromaniac as he is running around lighting fires on this issue and then putting the blame on everyone else, that concerns me. I have gone through the facts to show, in respect of the migrant intake, that there has not been the sort of bias that has been alleged. I have gone through the legislation to show that there has not been the sort of bias that has been alleged. I can go through the debate in the other place. I can quote remarks in sections of that debate from the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and other Opposition speakers to show the racist attitudes which I contend were expressed in that debate. What I wish to say, however, is- Senator Martin —Do it; do not just allege it. Senator BOLKUS —I am challenged to do it. I refer to the House of Representatives Hansard at page 1189 where Mr Hodgman stated: . . . English is the language which is spoken in Australia-not French, not Russian and not Chinese. That is an emotive phrase which gives absolutely no recognition to the fact, as has been recognised by previous Ministers for Immigration from both sides-- Senator Martin —That was not the debate on the Citizenship Bill. Senator BOLKUS —The running line on the page reads: 'Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill-2 April 1984-House of Representatives-1189'. That is where it appears. In saying that there is absolutely no recognition, no sensitivity and no understanding by the shadow Minister of the fact that this is indeed a multicultural society. It was a concept that was recognised by Mr Macphee when he was Minister. It is interesting that that was not quoted today by Senator Martin. That is one instance. I could look at some of the instances in the debate yesterday if need be, if I am challenged again. The point that concerns me is that this pyromaniac is allowed to continue on his crusade without check. What I wish to do in closing my comments on this Bill is to call on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), a person who has responsibility to Australia as well as to the Opposition, to assume this responsibility. He must, as has been done covertly by Senator Martin today, dissociate himself from Mr Hodgman's stated views on this legislation and on other areas of his shadow portfolio. I think the only constructive way in which the Leader of the Opposition can do this is by demanding Mr Hodgman's immediate dismissal. To do other than this is to continue sanctioning behaviour which is offensive not only to ethnic born Australians but also to Australians who believe in a truly multicultural society , a concept which as I have said has been endorsed in a bipartisan way over recent years. To refuse to do this would be to preside over the continuing overt and covert campaign which I believe does Australia no good. To do otherwise is to give Liberal Party approval to this culpable bloody-mindedness on the issue of multiculturalism and racism. Overseas born Australians and the Australian community as a whole deserve and expect a better quality of debate on this issue . I do not believe that we can get it whilst Mr Hodgman is shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —Madam Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented and seek leave to make a personal explanation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —You do not need leave, Senator Martin. Senator MARTIN —I have been misrepresented. I am not going to enter into the subject matter of the debate but the speaker preceding me, Senator Bolkus, did make references to what I had done and ascribed a certain meaning to this. He said that I had correctly dissociated myself from Mr Hodgman. He said it was interesting that Mr Hodgman's speech was not quoted by me. That is true; I did not quote from Mr Hodgman's speech. However, I did not do it for the reason the speaker attributed to me. I did not dissociate myself from the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I indicated that time was constrained and I could not say all the things I wanted to. Because of that, Senator Bolkus cannot conclude that any reference I may have made in my speech reflects in a disfavourable way on Mr Michael Hodgman. Senator Walters —Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I was in my room when I heard Senator Bolkus denigrating a member of parliament who is not a member of this place. That is against Standing Orders. Apart from anything else it was extremely untruthful. He has never made a racist comment in his life and for Senator Bolkus to come in here and abuse the privileges of this Senate, I believe, is extraordinarily unfair. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —There is no point of order. A point of order on that matter must be taken at the time, Senator Walters. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.47) —Debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill comes at a time when race has become a central issue in Australian politics. The debates and incidents in this Parliament and the media over the last couple of days should give all of us cause to pause and contemplate. We are now debating a Bill which is closely linked with and related to Australia's immigration policy. Immigration is a foundation policy upon which this country has been built. Australia has more overseas born people than any other nation in the world except Israel. One would have thought that that historical legacy would have given us a special sensitivity to migrants. It is a very delicate and fragile area upon which to make comments. I go no further than this: The attitude of the Opposition's spokesperson on this question as far as I am concerned is to be deeply regretted . Yesterday his speech made little reference to facts or details about the make- up of Australia's immigration policy but it was certainly charged with lots of rhetoric about radicalism, republicanism, the Queen, the flag and other matters. I go no further than to say that what he said was regrettable. I would rather quote in some substance from a magnificent editorial, a balanced editorial, in the Australian this morning: It is not only acceptable, it is desirable that there should be a rational discussion of such a basic element of our national life as our immigration policy. It is quite proper to point to the problems which could arise in a time of unemployment from bringing in large numbers of settlers with easily identifiable distinguishing characteristics. . . . . But accusations as to who 'brought the Asians in' and similar attempts at point -scoring can only heighten latent racial tensions and make rational argument impossible. . . . . We need a debate on immigration. It should not be stifled by misguided efforts to avoid accusations of 'racism'. The Australian editorial continued: But, unless it is carried on with moderation and respect for other points of view, we shall come to no sensible conclusion- Here the editorial reminds us of a sombre truth: and Australia will become an ugly place to live in. I commend those sentiments wholeheartedly. The Australian Citizenship Bill deals with a number of specifics about citizenship-the ultimate result of the immigration program. The majority of those specifics have the support of the Australian Democrats. I will come back to them in a moment. The Opposition has moved some basic amendments to the motion for the second reading of the Bill and will be moving certain amendments in the Committee stage of the debate. I indicate briefly at this second reading stage that we will support the Opposition's amendment which states: But the Senate- (a) disagrees with the Government's action in seeking to remove reference to Her Majesty the Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance. We will support that part of the Opposition's amendment to the second reading stage of the Bill. Part (b) of the Opposition's amendment which is in three parts we cannot support for reasons that I will give at the Committee stage. I want to assist in setting the foundation for rational debate on immigration that is to take place in this country from now until an election later this year. It is nearly apparent that the Opposition has now resiled, for what it says are good reasons, from debating what the Australian says should be debated. The Opposition seems to have resiled from bipartisanship in this area and identified immigration as an issue which should be debated in a partisan way. I accept that that is the right of the Opposition. However, I do not agree with that for the reasons that I will give. As the Australian has said, that is a perfectly respectable position for the Opposition to take. I would like to look at facts- provided the motivation for it is not to tap that scum out there who dwell on racism and take enjoyment from that. The debate so far has been couched in terms of whether current policy is pro- Asian, anti-Asian or pro-or anti-British. I point out that this characterisation is grossly misleading. It is not possible to compare Asia with Britain and Ireland. There are countries called Britain and Ireland. We can identify them and the people from there. However, there is no country known as Asia. It is not just one entity. Asia is a misused term for a number of separate nations. It is malicious for anyone to contrast one nation with one region and then claim bias. Unfortunately it is a comparison encouraged by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in the way it presents its data. In 1982-83, for example, the major sources of settler arrivals to Australia, including refugees, were as follows: Britain and Ireland, 29.2 per cent; Asia, 26.3 per cent. Of settler arrivals in 1982-83, 29 per cent came from Britain and Ireland and 26 per cent came from Asia. The bulk of the Asian component-that is the 26 per cent-was composed, of course, of refugees. I emphasise the fact that the bulk of those people were refugees. They were not people whom the then Government wooed to come here from that part of the world. If some people are considering cutting Asian migration-which the Democrats are certainly not contemplating and would not support-they will have to reduce the refugee intake. There is no other way of doing the sums. We believe that that would be an inhumane and callous view. Such an action could not be substantiated for a country such as Australia. I do not want to become sentimental, maudlin or emotional over this issue but when I walk down the street of any Australian city and see people who clearly have been refugees from a Asian country I secretly, although I am not a very religious person, thank God that I am an Australian and that I play a part in a country which was able to do a Christian act-an act of which Jesus Christ would have been proud. People who had nowhere to live could find a home and find solace in a beautiful, strong, rich country such as Australia. I would have liked to have thought that that sentiment, even from people not religious at all, could have been expressed in similar, if not identical words. If we look at the source countries rather than the fictitious region of Asia, an altogether different picture emerges. In 1982-83 the major source countries for settler arrivals were Britain with 34.6 per cent of non-refugee intakes, New Zealand with 10.2 per cent and Germany with 6.4 per cent. These are the source countries for settler arrivals. I repeat, British arrivals represented 34.6 per cent, New Zealand 10.2 per cent and Germany 6.4 per cent. When we look at those countries which could be classified as being Asian we see that Hong Kong arrivals represented 2.5 per cent. If we want to identify people by race, no doubt there would be a great number of Europeans in that percentage. Arrivals from India represented 1.6 per cent, and Singapore, 1.1 per cent. The so-called Asian intake of settlers in 1982-83 was almost infinitesimal compared to that non-refugee intake from Britain, New Zealand, Germany et cetera. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a detailed table containing those figures. The table is from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 1982-83 review. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MAJOR SOURCES OF SETTLER ARRIVALS 1982-83 Total arrivals Excluding refugees Rank Country (a) Number Per cent Country (a) Number Per cent 1. Britain 26 337 28.3 Britain 26 320 34.6 2. New Zealand 7 757 8.3 New Zealand 7 757 10.2 3. Germany 5 482 5.9 Germany 4 861 6.4 4. Thailand 5 159 5.5 South Africa 3 091 4.1 5. Malaysia 5 153 5.5 The Philippines 2 837 3.7 6. The Philippines 3 998 4.3 U.S.A. 2 342 3.1 7. South Africa 3 091 3.3 Hong Kong 1 947 2.5 8. Hong Kong 2 756 3.0 Malaysia 1 674 2.2 9. Austria 2 645 2.8 The Netherlands 1 617 2.1 10. U.S.A. 2 349 2.5 Canada 1 435 1.9 11. Indonesia 2 342 2.5 India 1 232 1.6 12. Yugoslavia 1 771 1.9 Yugoslavia 1 206 1.6 13. The Netherlands 1 617 1.7 Portugal 1 180 1.5 14. Portugal 1 479 1.6 Zimbabwe 944 1.2 15. Canada 1 435 1.6 Ireland 912 1.2 16. India 1 279 1.4 Poland 909 1.2 17. Singapore 1 044 1.1 Singapore 824 1.1 18. Poland 1 010 1.1 Switzerland 800 1.1 19. Zimbabwe 944 1.0 Lebanon 648 0.9 20. Ireland 912 1.0 Spain 632 0.8 Other 14 617 15.7 Other 12 955 17.0 Total 93 177 100.0 Total 76 123 100.0 (a) Country of last residence as stated on incoming passenger card. Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. ('Review of Activities to 30 June 1983', Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, AGPS, Canberra 1983). Senator CHIPP —I thank the Senate. The table shows that no country even comes close to Britain which is still the predominant source of settlers for Australia . The family reunion program makes up two-thirds of the current Government's intake. I again seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table that sets out what has happened in relation to applications and arrivals. The table clearly shows that while arrivals from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe have decreased by 4 per cent arrivals from Asia increased by only 2 per cent last year over the previous year. However, applications from Europe dropped off substantially in that year while those from Asia increased. In other words, the arrivals from Asia, if I can use that term, increased by only 2 per cent whereas the arrivals from the United Kingdom, Ireland and Europe decreased by only 4 per cent but during that time the applications lodged in Europe dropped dramatically from 209 ,000 to 130,000. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FAMILY REUNION A. Total Migration Applications (includes all categories of migration except refugees, but predominantly family reunion) 1981-2 1982-3 UK/Ireland/Europe 209,608 130,144 Asia 47,963 67,827 B. Arrivals Half-year 1982-3 1983-4 UK/Ireland/Europe 14,362 (53.3%) 8,142 (49.1%) Asia 6,928 (25.7%) 4,587 (27.6% ) Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Senator CHIPP —I thank the Senate. That does not represent a change of policy. It is the result of the humane and enlightened approach to the refugee intake embarked upon by the Fraser Government. I felt proud to be an Australian when the magnanimous charitable christian attitude of the Fraser Government started off the idea of absorption of refugees. It was a courageous policy and one that had the total support of the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Democrats . Surely it is unrealistic to expect, even inconceivable to believe, that we could accept refugees in the late 1970s and now refuse their families in the 1980s. That is an unthinkable proposition. Senator Martin is attempting to interject. I am not saying that anyone is recommending that; I am just putting it as a possibility. Those on the manic fringe are recommending it. People such as Bruce Ruxton and people of that ilk are recommending no refugees at all. I am stating a simple truth. It is inconceivable that we could accept refugees of the Vietnam War in the late 1970s and then in the 1980s, when their families want to come here, say: 'No you can't come'. Of course Asian applications for family reunion have increased. Some 90,000 Asians are resident and they want to be with their families. We let the British and the Europeans be with their families. Asian people are not second class people and they must not be discriminated against. For some Opposition senators to raise this as a concern seems to indicate by definition that persons who recommend that want some form of discrimination. I ask anybody who raises this: How else can we reduce the intake of Asian families ? People who do this should realise the consequences of what they are doing. In their desperate scramble to get a headline they are engineering community intolerance by advocating discrimination. The rhetoric does not match the facts. There is no discrimination. There are changes. There is an increase in the proportion of Asian arrivals and a decrease in the proportion of European arrivals. The absolute numbers still show that the traditional sources of settlers are still the largest sources. These changes are the results of enlightened and humanitarian policies put together by previous conservative governments with the support of all political parties. I have a table from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs which shows that during the years of the Fraser Government the level of Indo-Chinese refugees was of an order ranging between 12,000 and 15,000. I commend the Fraser Government for that courageous piece of christianity. The target of the Hawke Government is 10,000 refugees, about 5,000 fewer than the actual figures of the Fraser Government. I seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- INDO-CHINESE REFUGEE PROGRAMME ACCEPTANCES FOR AUSTRALIA 1974-75 691 1975-76 1,049 1976-77 1,135 1977-78 7,077 1978-79 11, 872 1979-80 14,952 1980-81 15,004 1981-82 13,805 1982-83 12,435 1983-84 (Target) *10,000 * estimate. Source: Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs An editorial in the Australian was headed: 'Australia must not become an ugly place to live'. But we will become an ugly place in which to live if the facts and their causes are ignored and replaced by wild politically motivated irrationality. I do not believe that those who have made accusations of bias are in themselves racist, but let all members of the Opposition know that, while they may not be racist, one has only to scratch the surface in Australia to find racism rampant. To inflame those sorts of people would be an act of irresponsibility which would be hard to forgive or condone. The danger is that the consequences of the rhetoric of some people will be to fan those underground elements of racism and prejudice. The result will be the emergence of every bigot from the woodwork. Every fruitcake in the country will ooze from his slimy corner to gain a piece of the revolting action which is racial intolerance. That process inspires some ugly memories of past prejudice and discrimination. This nation was enlightened enough to put an overdue end to discrimination in the 1970s. We recognise that a person is a person, regardless of his colour, creed or nationality. All that will be undone unless those who believe their political hides are worth saving come to their senses and see the consequences of these actions. In conclusion, I commend the words of an anonymous philosopher to those who are tempted to go even a little way down this stinking, rotten track of racial exploitation. This philosopher said as he contemplated eternity while he was very ill: I know not what record of sin awaits me in the other world but this I do know . . . that during my lifetime I was never evil enough to despise a person because they were poor, because they were ignorant or because the colour of their skin was different to mine. May every honourable senator of this Senate say 'Amen' to that. Senator LAJOVIC(New South Wales)(4.07) —I rise in support of the Opposition's amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Australian Citizenship Bill. I will not comment on the speeches made by the previous speakers, Senator Bolkus and Senator Chipp. I have no time to do that and they will be dealt with later on. I claim, I think quite rightly, that I am the only member of this chamber who has experienced the trauma and decisions of migrating to a foreign country and renouncing my allegiance of my own free will and taking the oath to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second. People who have migrated to this country have not been forced to come here. We all came here of our own free will because we knew that we would find freedom and a stable government under constitutional monarchy. I attended dozens of naturalisation ceremonies even before I became a senator and I have never heard anyone expressing any doubt or any criticism about taking an oath of allegiance to the Queen. I wish to deal with only three subjects: Firstly, the oath of allegiance; secondly, the residence qualifications for citizenship; and thirdly, language requirements. Let us look at the real reasons for the changes to the Australian Citizenship Act. Dealing first with allegiance, it is a socialist ideology which prefers a republican system to the monarchy. That is their privilege and they have the freedom to believe that. Secondly, the Government's reason for changing residence qualifications is to give a vote to as many migrants as possible for its own socialist political advantage because it hopes that migrants will vote for it. Thirdly, the reduced language requirement was decided upon in order to keep migrants ignorant, in the dark as to what our democratic system is all about in this country. There will be no incentive for a migrant to learn English . What is more important, it will give the union bosses total control of the migrant workers in the factories who do not understand English. Why is this being done in this Act? It is a typical socialist ploy to blame somebody else in order to cover up their own aims or their failures. They always blame bad weather for a bad economy or for the failure of their agricultural policies. Migrants are blamed for unemployment. Trade unions almost achieved closing off immigration during the Whitlam regime. This Government claims now that all it is doing had already been proposed by the Fraser Government. But what is cowardly and dastardly in this whole exercise is that this socialist Government tries to blame the migrants for its own desire to change the system in this nation from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. It does not want to admit that this is what it wants because it knows what will be the reaction of the Australian public. I deal now with the oath of allegiance. Can we take the word of the Government that all these amendments are being made because of the consultative conferences ? I would like to quote from a Government publication issued by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs entitled 'Review 83' which says: Total attendance exceeded 2000, including more than 400 in each of Perth, Sydney and Melbourne. This is a total of 2000 people in the whole of Australia, taking into account that one and a half million migrants are naturalised.The Government purports that the decisions in the changing of this Act are due to the point of view of the people of Australia, yet only 2000 people attended the conferences. I wish to refer again to the same report which states: The following proposals received some attention during the consultations: I emphasise the words 'some attention'. The report then lists the subjects as: British subject status the Oath of Allegiance English language requirements And so it goes on. The report further states: One speaker rejected the rationale for the consultations, namely, proposed legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act . . . I stress the words 'one speaker'. This Government is constantly saying what it has been doing. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said: These sentiments have been around for a long time. The Labor Government did not invent them, it merely responded to the wishes of the Australian people. The present Special Minister of State, Mr Young, said in the debate on the ministerial statement on Australian citizenship on 6 May 1982: Attitudes are changing quite dramatically in that field as well. The Australian Labor Party, at its last national conference, adopted a policy of seeking that, in the long run, Australia should be a republic. That is where the whole thing lies. This Government does not want to tell the people that that is what it is all about. The honourable member for Macarthur, Mr Hollis, said in the other place during his speech on this debate that many such people have not taken out citizenship because of allegiance to the Queen. How many are 'many' if the whole consultative process brought only 2,000 people to the conferences? Mr West said on 2 May that the whole thing 'is a divisive provocation to require them'-the migrants-'to swear allegiance to the Queen who is resident elsewhere before they can obtain Australian citizenship'. How absolutely untrue. What about the one and a half million naturalised Australians who have taken up citizenship? The Minister said further: The present renunciation of allegiance is ambiguous . . . people are being asked to renounce their previous nationality, their previous language or their culture . . . If the Minister knows anything about what the word 'nationality' means he would not say that. There are two different interpretations of 'nationality' and ' citizenship'. Nationality is the cultural background of a person. Citizenship is a state which is given by a political entity. There are Swiss citizens who are of Italian nationality or French nationality but they are all French citizens. The Minister shows his total ignorance about that. If we look further at what the Minister said about the monarchy we find that he said: The monarchy should not be a matter of division. Who asked him to divide the nation on that point? Why does he not let the present oath of allegiance remain as it is? The fact is that her Majesty the Queen is the Queen of Australia. There is nothing un-Australian in swearing allegiance to her. The sovereign is an integral part of our Constitution, our Government, our parliamentary system, our society, our history and our tradition . I wish to deal now with citizenship. In my view, and in the view of many others , citizenship is a privilege which a nation can bestow upon a new arrival or a migrant. Citizenship should be a reward. Citizenship should not be something where one can go to a post office and say: 'I would like citizenship. Here is my 20c'. Australia is the only country in the Western world which will change and diminish the term of residence before one can become a voting citizen with all that that implies. One has to be resident in the United States of America for five years, in Canada three years and in France five years before one can obtain citizenship. In France it is required that an applicant must be fluent in French . In Germany one needs to be resident for 10 years, and in Greece three years; but there are very few people who can get Greek citizenship. One has to be resident in Italy for five years, in Sweden five years and in Switzerland 10 years. Australia will be the only country that will have a two-year residence qualification. It was proposed at the consultative conferences: Three years should be the residence eligibility period for citizenship. Then follows this comment: Discussion of this topic tended to be in the form of brief assertions rather than by reasoned argument. Some speakers thought that a 3-year requirement was adequate to qualify for citizenship, but others suggested that it be reduced to only a year. It was pointed out that many of the originating countries of Australia's migrants required a qualifying period considerably longer than three years. At the end of the page it is stated: No consensus emerged from the rather fragmentary consideration of this topic. What has the Government done? It has reduced the period to two years. It could not care less what the people say about it. If we look at the ethnic Press we see that on 18 November 1983 the Maltese Herald stated: Australian citizenship should not be made easy to obtain because it would lose its value. The Australian Labor Government wants to make people, who have been only resident in Australia for two years, eligible for it. This effectively means that one can initiate the process of application following eighteen months of residence. In our opinion this is too short. It continued: People who have been through the experience of emigration will argue that one needs more than two years in order to decide what one really wants to do . . . Australian citizenship should never become cheap or made attractive for political reasons. Citizenship should become something special to obtain provided that a person has decided to consider this country as his home forever. It is not a decision to be taken lightly or for ulterior motives. When a person becomes an Australian citizen he should enjoy equal rights in all fields. I have only a few minutes left and I would like to deal with language. I would like the Minister to explain what is an adequate knowledge of English and what is a basic knowledge of English. I wonder how anyone who becomes an Australian citizen will be a juror or obtain a driver's permit. In the night edition of yesterday's 'Dateline News Digest' this statement appeared: The Victorian Cabinet today decided to upgrade written driving licence tests and to intensify the State-wide random breath testing campaign. I wonder how a migrant who does not need to know how to read or write English will obtain a driver's permit. How would anyone who does not understand English and who does not know how to read or write English be able to vote according to his wish and ideology? We always hear that there are so many informal votes. It is always the fault of migrants. It is the migrants who do not know how to vote and they vote informally. With this new amendment there will be less incentive for migrants to learn English and to be able to do what is required of them if they become our citizens. I will now speak about what the consultative conferences said about the language requirements. I quote: Proposal: English is Australia's national language and should be retained as a citizenship requirement. Citizenship Regulations under the Act should include a definition of the English language level required to meet the 'adequate English standard'. Another comment was this: This topic was the subject of more discussion than any other at the forums. A division of opinion exists between those who wish to retain the present requirement or some other degree of English language competence and those who wish to abolish it. No consensus or clearly preponderant view emerged. That is what the report issued by the Government shows what happened at those consultative conferences. The report of the last stage stated: If present suggestions for watering down the demand for English were to be accepted, this could present an impediment to the development of a multicultural society in which written information in English is one of the basic media of communication. I now refer to the 'Monash Review' bulletin, 1-1984. It deals with a survey revealing migrant language problems. It states: The survey findings suggest that while the traditional classroom teaching of English to adult migrants has a role in certain circumstances, in most situations it is not effective and it is not likely to be so in the future. I finish my speech by totally opposing the measures of the present Government and supporting the amendments moved by the Opposition. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.25) —I draw attention to three main areas in the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill-those which remove discrimination embedded in the present Act, those which reduce the range of subjective judgment, which is often in itself discriminatory, and those which remove anomalies. Many provisions of the Citizenship Act have become anachronistic, either because of a change in conditions in the source countries-what might be called the supply side-or in social attitudes in Australia. For example, Australians, hopefully, are more tolerant than they were 20 years ago about people who have difficulties with English. All of us in this chamber are migrants or descendants of migrants and we ought not to forget that. Most of us acquired citizenship by birth and tend to take it for granted, forgetting how much it may mean in emotional and/or practical terms to those seeking to become Australian citizens. These amendments will smooth the way for many of those applicants. On the other hand, we need to consider why an estimated 1.2 million eligible residents have not applied to become citizens. These amendments will remove some of the factors which have deterred those people from applying. I would like to deal first with a clause of the Bill which will remove present discrimination. The existing legislation discriminates against those who do not have 'British citizen' status in that those who have that status may automatically gain the benefits of citizenship such as voting or eligibility for Public Service employment. This was intended as a transitional arrangement when we ceased to be labelled British subjects as well as Australians. All other Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom itself, have now dropped this concept. It is time Australia fully recognised its own identity. In line with this recognition that Australia has reached full adulthood, the Bill specifies a new pledge of Australian citizenship to be sworn or affirmed in future by those becoming Australian citizens. The previous form of words was ambiguous, I believe, in that it did not make clear that new citizens were renouncing allegiance to the country of origin but not renouncing their cultural heritage, language, and customs. They were not cutting themselves off from their roots in another country or another culture unless they so wished. The new pledge reads: I . . . renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge- or, in the alternative form, I swear by Almighty God- that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. There has been criticism in some quarters about the lack of mention of the Queen in this pledge and we have heard some more today. Those who wish to retain allegiance to the Queen in the wording of the pledge are ignoring the rights of those who find it confusing, or even hypocritical, to swear allegiance to a sovereign who lives in another country. I know migrants from countries which are members of the Commonwealth who have refrained from becoming citizens because they believed it would be hypocritical to make a pledge of loyalty to the Crown. Migrants from countries with no historical links with the United Kingdom must find it even more difficult to pledge allegiance to a sovereign who lives elsewhere. During the national consultations held in 1982 this view was widely expressed by a variety of people, including holders of Imperial awards. Far from being divisive, it is surely a unifying move that all new citizens should simply pledge allegiance to their country of adoption in language which is readily understood by all Australians. Clause 4 of the Bill removes another discriminatory provision of the existing Act in that it gives equal importance to the father and mother of a child and equal rights to extra-marital children. Under the existing legislation the father is regarded in terms of citizenship as 'the responsible parent', the mother being responsible, by definition, only if the child's father is dead, she has sole custody of the child or the child is 'born out of wedlock'-another anachronism. This amendment removes any discrimination in granting citizenship on the basis of the sex or marital status of parents. 'Responsible parent' will now be defined in terms of the guardianship or custody of the child, as it is in other areas of Australian law. The risk of discrimination cannot be completely removed while the Act retains room for considerable subjective judgment. This Bill reduces the areas where subjective judgment is applied when assessing applicants. Clause 11 gives fuller legislative definition of the requirement of good character by detailing the circumstances where an application will be refused for lack of it. It specifies the lower limits of good character while leaving some flexibility in that ministerial discretion is retained, for example, where it is difficult to compare sentences under differing overseas criminal codes. These amendments in the main give force to the practice which has been followed under the guidelines for some time but lessen the likelihood of an officials subjective judgments leading to anomalous decisions. The language requirement-another area where subjective judgment plays a part- has, up to now, been discriminatory in that it demanded an 'adequate knowledge of English' when the ability to learn a language is dependent on many factors, only some of which are in the control of the learner. The degree of difficulty in learning a second language is related to such factors as the nature of the native language, the age of the learner and the educational level reached in the native language; thus it is easier for Germans or Italians to learn English, a language with common roots with their own, than it is, say, for Hungarians or Chinese, whose languages have little in common with English. Teachers of language know that the ease of learning a language is, generally speaking, dependent on age. The younger one is, the easier it is to learn a second language. Those who have had minimal education in their own language, and thus whose language structure and vocabulary are simple, will find it difficult to become fluent in a second language. Add to this the difficulty of learning a new language when, for example, you work in a situation where little English is used, or perhaps little language is used, or you are housebound with young children and few contacts outside your own ethnic group. To meet this inbuilt discrimination the requirement of adequate English is replaced in this legislation by a basic knowledge of English, and this basic knowledge will be clearly defined. Because it is recognised that it becomes harder to learn a language when a person is older, persons over 50 years of age are exempt from this provision, as are those with relevant physical or mental handicaps. It is very important that we encourage migrants to improve their English in order to make life easier and more pleasant for themselves, rather than rejecting applicants for citizenship because someone makes the relatively subjective judgment that their English is not adequate. The Bill allows, incidentally, for deferrals to allow applicants to obtain basic English skills. It should be remembered that the Human Rights Commission, in its 1982 report on the Australian Citizenship Act, queried the requirement of adequate English as possibly in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of language. The Commission stated a belief that the requirement for a basic knowledge of English could be justified, however, under that Convention. I mention particularly of two anomalies which are being removed by this Bill. Under the existing provisions for citizenship by descent it was possible to become an Australian citizen by descent even if one's legally Australian forebears had never set foot in Australia. For example, an Australian citizen who settled, say, in Europe could produce generations of descendants who could claim Australian citizenship without ever even visiting this country. Yet the Opposition, which did nothing to change this provision, is now objecting to the reduction of the qualifying period of residence for migrants from three years to two. This Bill adds the provision that, for a child born outside Australia to acquire Australian citizenship by descent, if the parent also acquired citizenship in that way, the parent must, in addition, have spent a total of at least two years in Australia. The previous situation would seem bizarre to most people. Indeed, a total two years stay seems little enough to justify handing on citizenship to one's children, but it is a step forward. Proposed new section 10A provides for the acquisition of citizenship by adoption. This was previously a grey area, as the old legislation made no specific reference to adoption. From the time of the passage of this Bill any child adopted in this country by an Australian citizen or citizens will have Australian citizenship by right. It has been an interesting experience for me to have had for the last 30 years a surname which is obviously not Anglo-Saxon. I have noticed over those years a change in attitudes shown in behaviour towards me in places such as railway stations and hospital outpatients' clinics by people who know my name before they hear my voice. People generally are far less patronising and less overly suspicious in that situation than they were in the 1950s. I hope it does not take as long to overcome the prejudice we unhappily see directed at present towards migrants from Asian countries. I do not think it will. Not only are we now, I hope, a more open-minded society than we were in the 1940s and 1950s but we now have the advantage of multicultural television and the many programs which operate in schools throughout the community to bring about better communication and understanding among people of different cultural backgrounds. I believe that this Bill is an important part of that process and I commend it to the Senate. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.35) -I rise briefly to address myself to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. I preface my remarks by saying that it is appropriate from time to time that we in this country, particularly in the Parliament of this country, should concern ourselves with the requirements, obligations and rights that pertain to Australian citizenship. I strongly endorse the amendment to be moved by the Opposition to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, which states: 'but the Senate- (a) disagrees with the Government's action in seeking to remove reference to Her Majesty the Queen from the oath of allegiance and the affirmation of allegiance- It is pleasing to the Opposition to find that the Australian Democrats, as indicated by their Leader, Senator Chipp, propose to support that element, at least, of the amendment- (b) views with concern- (i) the Government's deliberate devaluation of the importance of the honour of Australian citizenship, which is referable to the time required- (ii) the Government's overall failure to consult properly with the people of Australia before bringing into this Parliament such radical republican legislative proposals, and (iii) the Government's refusal to put such a fundamental change in citizenship to the people of Australia in a referendum.' It is pleasing that the debate this afternoon has not resolved itself into a consideration of racial problems or multiculturalism. When I listened to Senator Bolkus in the early stage of the debate I must say that I wondered whether we would spend the afternoon discussing such matters as multiculturalism and the racial problems that confront all countries in the world and that, particularly in the form of multiculturalism, have become part and parcel of the Australian circumstance. However, it has not resolved itself into that sort of discussion. It has been confined, on the contrary, to the matter of Australian citizenship. Of course, there can be no objection to some of the proposed changes. On the other hand, one of the most basic elements of the proposed legislation refers to the oath of allegiance to the Queen. It seems to me strange, to put it gently, that there should be such a proposition from an Australian government. After all , the Queen to whom allegiance is undertaken is the Queen of Australia. She became the Queen of Australia under the socialist government of Mr Whitlam. So it seems strange that there should be opposition to taking an oath of allegiance to the Queen of Australia. As one talks of citizenship, there seems to be a tendency to reject anything that belongs to the past, certainly to the relatively, in Australian terms, distant past. There seems to be a tendency to divorce oneself from tradition, which is to divorce oneself from the evolutionary process which all honourable senators who have an interest in history will recognise is the only process that has produced any measure of permanence in the progress of mankind, whether he is in Australia, Europe, Asia or wherever. I do not understand why the Government seeks to divorce reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance. It seems to be a totally illogical proposition. It seems strange that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who I thought was regarded at least by himself and by a measure of his own camp as the king of consensus and accord, should have decided to introduce this measure to divorce the Queen from the oath of allegiance, which clearly will have the effect only of creating division in this great Australian society. The Queen of Australia-indeed, she is the Queen of many other realms-is envied by many nations purely and simply because she is a symbol of the unity of which many nations are envious. I am reminded of an occasion only a few months ago when I had the pleasure and the honour of being an Australian delegate at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. We had discussions with a great number of nations which belonged to the British Commonwealth of nations. Every one of them regarded the Queen with a measure of reverence. But most importantly, I believe, the Queen was a very real symbol of unity to every one of them. It seems strange and almost inexplicable that an Australian government should seek to divorce the Queen from the position she holds in the form of the oath or affirmation of allegiance. In my view the Prime Minister of this country certainly has no mandate to leave the Queen out of the oath of allegiance, to suddenly decide that her presence in that oath is unneeded. Perhaps that decision relates to his pipe dreams of a presidential style of government. Perhaps, on the other hand it could be seen as some sort of gesture to the left wing of his party in order that he may more successfully pursue his ultimate objective in the field of uranium development in Australia. One does not know. But one has to say that it is extraordinary to see an Australian government seeking to extricate the Queen from the oath of allegiance. Mr Hawke is obviously confused by referendums. It is not very long ago that he had four or five referendums coming up. He then had none. At the moment I think there are two. Senator Martin —We are not sure. Senator SCOTT —As Senator Martin says, we are not sure of that. But at the moment I think it is two. Who knows? It may be none. It may be five. But one thing is quite certain. In spite of the 75 per cent popularity rating that the Prime Minister allegedly had a short while ago, there will be no attempt by him to hold a referendum on this issue concerning the Queen. Indeed, I fear-it is one of the fears that comes out of this sort of legislation-that he may well not have a referendum on changing the flag, getting rid of the Victoria Cross or the Queen's Medal or any other institution of the Australian way of life and our history which is valued by great numbers of Australians within and outside Australia. There will be no referendum to make a decision on issues such as those. The flag is as significant as the Queen is in the case of allegiance, because the flag is surely a representative object of the history of this country. Although things occur in the history of our country and of many other countries of which we may, in retrospect, not absolutely approve, that is no reason to divorce ourselves from them. We are a continuing, a permanent circumstance. The idea of suddenly ad-libbing and, in an ad hoc way, moving away from this and that area which relate to the permanence and the strength of this country is to be abhorred. It is my pleasure to support very fully, and, I hope, a little more fully during the Committee stage, the propositions and the amendments of the Opposition in regard to this legislation. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales)(4.45) —Senator Martin stated in her speech that Mr Macphee's statement of May 1982 still captures the Opposition's attitude towards the proposed legislation. I wonder why she is running away from the statements made by shadow Minister Hodgman when leading for the Opposition in the House of Representatives during the second reading debate. I also congratulate Senator Chipp, who spoke earlier in this debate, for what I consider to have been a very courageous speech. I make one small point for the benefit of Senator Scott. I really do not think it is un-Australian to want a new flag for this country. What we have to ask ourselves this afternoon is why we are having this debate and treating it virtually as a matter of public importance on a parliamentary broadcast day. What reason does the Opposition believe that this issue of citizenship and pro-British sentiment is a vote winner? One needs only to point to the disgraceful display in the House of Representatives yesterday for evidence of that belief, a display orchestrated by the Opposition. The Liberal Party of Australia recently went on a retreat to Thredbo. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) described it, 'threadbare at Thredbo'. It was reported that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, said: 'There will be no post- mortem as to why we lost the next election', which was a Freudian slip- Senator Martin —What has this to do with the Bill? Senator SIBRAA —That was what was written in the paper. I quoted a report. When the Liberals examined their prospects for the next election, they had to take account of the fact that we have an expanding economy, which is producing lower inflation, providing more jobs and less unemployment. Further, they would have examined the most recent Gallup polls-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The Chair has allowed a fairly wide-ranging debate on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1984. However, I suggest to you, Senator Sibraa, that references to unemployment are going a little outside the ambit of the debate. I ask you to confine your remarks to the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. Senator SIBRAA —Madam Acting Deputy President, I accept your ruling, but I am leading to the reason why debate on this sort of issue is getting priority. Senator Martin —Citizenship. Senator SIBRAA —I will get to citizenship. We have heard two other speeches this afternoon in the same vein. I must say that Senator Chipp's speech did not deal very much with citizenship. What the Liberals were looking at at Thredbo was the prospect of another election defeat if an early election were held. All of those facts added together to produce a desperate Opposition, an Opposition desperate for an election issue. I believe that it reached into the bottom of the barrel and found immigration policy. It has been linked with the speeches all over Australia on citizenship. The Opposition believes that it can run on these issues. Senator Bolkus —I take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator who is speaking has been continually harassed by the shadow spokesperson for the Opposition who has attempted to interject. I ask you to call that honourable senator to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Sibraa has the call. Senator Martin had her turn a little earlier. I call Senator Sibraa. Senator SIBRAA —I do not mind the interjections that are being made. I believe that the tragedy for the Liberal Party is that if one goes back to Harold Holt he can be seen as the Prime Minister who broke down the White Australia barriers . I believe that excellent work was done by former Fraser Government Ministers Macphee and MacKellar, to name only two of them. They carried on the bipartisan tradition. At a citizenship ceremony in Manly-Warringah, the area in Sydney in which I live, Mr MacKellar stated publicly that it was only a bipartisan approach that had kept the delicate fabric of our immigration policy in place. We know of many examples in the past of prejudice that has been shown against Italians and Greeks. I grew up in a small country town in New South Wales, where there was a campaign against people from southern Europe who were Catholics. It was said that they owed their allegiance to the Pope and that they should not take out allegiance to Australia. We know that that was nonsense. Both sides of politics in this country stood firm, and Australia is a better place to live in as a result. When Mr Millar, in the other place, ranted and raved about the evils of multiculturalism, he should have taken a closer look at the present Australian community. Forty per cent of Australians were born in another country, as Senator Chipp said this afternoon, or have a parent who was born in another country. Only Israel has a higher proportion. I am staggered by the hypocrisy of people in this community warning about the supposed dangers of increased Asian immigration. Let us look at the figures. When members of the Opposition were in government, they originated the Indo-Chinese refugee program. One only has to look at these rounded off figures: 1977-78, 7,000; 1978-79, 12,000; 1979-80, 15, 000; 1980-81, 16,000; 1981-82, 15,000; 1982-83, 13,000; and 1983-84, the first full year of this Labor Government, 10,000-the lowest figure since 1977-78. All honourable senators would be aware that this was handled in a bipartisan way, as it should have been. Those Asians who migrated during this period did so as refugees escaping from the war in Vietnam. They were mainly ethnic Chinese who believed that they were escaping a communist dictatorship. Last year this Government reduced the immigration intake from 93,000 to 70,000, with an emphasis on family reunion. As Senator Chipp said this afternoon, if we brought these people to Australia, we cannot turn round now and say that we do not want to reunite them with their families. I want to examine what members of the Opposition are complaining about in this legislation. To achieve our objective of making the citizenship ceremony more reflective of our national identity, the Government proposes to alter the oath of allegiance. The declaration of allegiance incorporates three elements: Firstly, the renunciation of former allegiance; secondly, a commitment to observe the laws of Australia; and thirdly, a declaration of new allegiance to Australia. The incorporation of these three elements within the proposed amendment has been attacked with great vitriol by members of the Opposition, most notably Mr Hodgman and Mr Millar, in the other place. I believe that the hysteria and sensationalism which the Opposition is seeking to evoke through its attack on this provision is out of step with the views of the vast majority of Australians. In support of that assertion, I draw honourable senators' attention to the report by Professor Jerzy Zubrycki entitled 'National Consultations on Multiculturalism and Citizenship', which was tabled in May last year. I hasten to add that that report was commissioned by the Opposition when it was in government. In that report, Professor Zubrycki noted that Mr Macphee, on 6 May 1982, outlined changes to the Australian Citizenship Act. He stated: . . . that in a number of ways, the Citizenship Act no longer adequately reflected the current values and attitudes of the Australian community. Mr Macphee was right in the sentiments he expressed in May 1982. However, we should look further at the conclusions drawn as a result of the consultations conducted by Professor Zubrycki. In a section of the report that dealt with the oath of allegiance, the proposal was that the oath/ affirmation should be reworded. The report went on to say: Speakers' responses dealt with two parts of the present Oath: the renunciation of former allegiances and the swearing of allegiance to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors. The strongly-held and predominant view emerging from the consultations was that swearing allegiance to a sovereign, and especially to a named sovereign resident elsewhere, was inappropriate in Australia at its present stage of history. This view was shared by persons from a variety of backgrounds, including holders of Imperial awards- Senator Lajovic —I know what it says; I have read it too. Senator SIBRAA —I am only quoting from the report, Senator Lajovic. The report continues: . . . and persons who maintained that they were not republicans. No hostility was expressed towards Her Majesty, though one speaker did pose the conundrum as to where her own allegiance would lie if Britain came into conflict with Australia. Few speakers were in favour of retaining a mention of the Queen in the Oath of Allegiance, and spoke mainly to register their support, rather than to advance a reasoned case for its retention. The Government will give effect to those views expressed by the majority of those involved in the consultations referred to. The legislation proposed two new wordings for the pledge of Australian citizenship. The first states: I . . . renounce any current citizenship and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I pledge that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia, and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The second new wording states: I . . . renounce any current citizenship, and all allegiance to any State other than Australia. I swear by Almighty God that I will faithfully uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. Despite the wild claims of Mr Hodgman and others of this Party, the two proposals do not discriminate between people's views on the monarchy, and nor should they do so. I believe that the terms of both the proposed wordings are distinctly Australian in character. Moreover, they resolve the previously unique requirement of having to swear allegiance to a sovereign resident elsewhere. Given the cultural mix of modern Australian society, I believe the wordings I have quoted to be more attuned to the wishes of the Australian community. Let me return to the current campaign that is being run by some sections of Australian society and by sections of the Opposition. They are trying to appeal to their natural constituency, to some elements of the rural lobby, to the National Party of Australia, and to some sections of the Returned Services League. Mr Peacock on Nationwide last night said that he did not want a reduced Asian refugee program or family reunion program; he just wanted the absolute numbers of Europeans increased. Prior to last night the Opposition clearly implied that the number of Asians coming to Australia was too great. The Opposition is now back-pedalling. It now says that the numbers of Asians are not too great. Senator Martin —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I am sorry to interrupt Senator Sibraa's Press release, but we are debating citizenship. He was not in the chamber when you were in the chair previously and the issue arose. He is talking about immigration policy. What he is talking about is nowhere reflected in the Bill, or in the original Act. Senator SIBRAA —Speaking to the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President, I was in the chamber when opposition was taken to statements being made by Senator Bolkus. I was also in the chamber when Senator Chipp made a 20-minute speech on Australia's immigration problems. No member of the Opposition took one point of order during Senator Chipp's speech. Further to the point of order, in some of the statements and some of the speeches-I can quote from the Hansard report from the other place-the questions of immigration, multiculturalism and citizenship have been linked together, and I am doing the same thing. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! There is no point of order. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that, without immigration, we would not need a Citizenship Act. By the same token, I suggest to Senator Sibraa that he draws his attention to the subject before the Senate. Senator SIBRAA —I am coming to a conclusion, Madam Acting Deputy President, and I take notice of your ruling. The tragedy for this Parliament and for Australia is that the Opposition is no longer led on this issue by someone of the strength of Mr Malcolm Fraser. Some critics of the Opposition say that the Liberal Party has become trendy. However, the truth is that its members have moved to the far Right, vacating the centre ground of Australian politics. Another good example of that is the recently announced coalition non-policies on South Africa. Indeed , some Liberal supporters say that Mr Fraser will be remembered for giving Rhodesia to the blacks. If there was one thing that the coalition was not allowed to be under Malcolm Fraser, it was racist. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(5.00) —The community and the Senate might be pardoned for not knowing that the Senate is debating the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983. In that Bill the Government seeks to do two distinctive things: It seeks to remove the need for an oath of allegiance to the Crown and it seeks to reduce the period of waiting for naturalisation from three years to two years. Let me deal with this matter in an absolutely factual way. The structure of Australia involves a head of state and a head of government. The concept is that the head of state be unitary-that is, for all people-and the head of government, a Prime Minister, be elected in a partisan way and, therefore, represent only a majority. Our country has chosen very wisely, as most countries have done, to have a head of state separate from the head of government. America has combined the head of state, the head of government and the commander-in-chief, to its detriment, I think. In any case, the dilemma of a country is how to come by a head of state, if it is to have one. Does it elect that person and thus have a partisan head of state; or, what is better, does it have what is not an old fashioned thing but the most modern concept of all-the emergence, the evolution of a family such as the present royal family which expresses in its family values the qualities that all of us want, the spirit of the rule of law, the rule of democracy, and all such precious things? If we had to invent the principle of a head of state and the system of getting that head of state we could not do better than the evolutionary system. If we are to have a head of state of Australia as expressed through the Governor-General and the Governors-and I think everybody agrees it is important to have the vice-regal people separate from the Premiers and the Prime Minister- we have at this moment an evolutionary system with the Queen as the head of Australia. The fact that she is of English birth is quite irrelevant. In a multicultural society a head of state has to have some kind of nationality, whatever it may be. In point of fact the Queen's children are of multicultural origin-Greek, British and German. In fact there could be no more multicultural symbol than the House of Windsor. What nonsense is talked about there being introduced into this situation some pro-British feeling. That is not the case at all. What is being asked is that the ordinary person taking Australian citizenship should do the same as any judge or any Minister of the Hawke Government or of any State government and take an oath of allegiance to the head of state. Every Minister here becomes a member of the Federal Executive Council by taking an oath, not only swearing allegiance to the head of state, the Queen, but also swearing that they will advise her accurately and confidentially. What nonsense it is for these very people, who are here as honourable Ministers only because they have taken that oath, to say: 'Yes, we will hide that oath and the oath of judges and parliamentarians, but it is not for ordinary people'. The fact is that when a person, whether Italian, Greek, Vietnamese or whatever, takes citizenship of this country that person is saying: 'I acknowledge my allegiance to a structure which has a head of state as well as a head of government. I acknowledge my allegiance to a head of state who is unitary and not destructive or divisive'. That is all. That head of state must have a nationality of some kind. Does anybody doubt-the gallup polls do not, because they show that the overwhelming majority of Australians want the present system of the evolved head of state-that the best method of obtaining the head of state is in the evolutionary way? Or do we want the kind of narcissist head of state that we see as head of government today? Do we want the partisanship that is reflected in the ballot box, or do we want the evolution? It is nonsense to talk in any other way. We are asking for a very simple thing indeed. We want every potential citizen, of whatever nationality-Asian or European-to take an oath saying: 'I believe in and I will work under the system of a head of state and a head of government. I accept we need a unitary system for Australia. Therefore, I take that oath, as does a Minister and as does a judge'. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(5.06) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I draw the attention of the Senate to a sentence contained in the letter from the Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council, Professor Slatyer , to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in which he said: The main conclusion is that handicapped people are not enjoying the full benefits of technology, irrespective of whether the level of technology is simple or sophisticated. Madam Acting Deputy President, I know your interest in this area and I recommend the report to you, given that it is restricted by virtue of the people who have made a contribution to it. If one turns to the back page one will see there a list of the people consulted. A large number of them are from academic, industry , voluntary and government groups with a direct or indirect interest in handicapped people. I have not been able to find, in the short time available to me, any area where the Technological Change Committee actually met with handicapped people per se to learn of their attitudes to what technology is or is not doing for them. I thought that would have been very high on the priority list. However, a further study, 'The Handicapped Programs Review-Aids and Appliances', is being conducted, I understand, by the Australian Government. Perhaps that will give us a further indication of the needs of the people themselves, not an indication of what other people believe their requirements are. But there are some very interesting figures in this report, figures which certainly frightened me because I was not aware of the number of handicapped people in the community. For instance, paragraph 1.6 on page 2 of the report says: For the ABS survey a disabled person was defined as a person who had one or more of the following disabilities (which have lasted, or are likely to last, for six months or more): It then goes on to talk about loss of sight, loss of hearing, speech difficulties in native language, blackouts, fits, slowness of learning or understanding, incomplete use of arms, legs or fingers, and so on. Paragraph 1. 10 then says: The 1981 survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated 1,264,600 Australians (8.6 per cent of the population) to be handicapped, and a further 677,400 to be disabled but with no subsequent handicap. Thus in total, 1,942,000 Australians (13.2 per cent of the population) are disabled. In the survey, three levels of severity (severe, moderate and mild) were determined for three different aspects of daily living: self-care, mobility and communication . . . Of the 1,255,200 handicapped persons aged 5 years or more, 295,800 were mildly handicapped; 253,700 were moderately handicapped; 514,000 were severely handicapped and severity of total handicap was not determined for the remaining 161,600 persons. Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure that you will agree with me that those figures are frightening. It is perhaps time that this community started to look very quickly at means of providing those handicapped and disabled people with the necessary technological aids to enable them to have a reasonable lifestyle, whether it be involvement in the work force, simply a means of communication or being able to fend for themselves in their daily lives. Another statistic of the ABS is that 38 per cent of all handicapped persons use one or more aids. We are frequently made aware of the position of the handicapped in our community. I can remember many years ago when the main Commonwealth bank in Perth first installed a special switchboard for a blind person to handle. The concern that I expressed then is as real as it is today. Whilst that was considered to be new technology, so many technological advancements are being made on a day by day basis that we have to think ahead for the requirements that those people will need to live a reasonably 'normal' life. Those aids can range from simple assistance in the home unit to the latest in technology which will enable them to participate in a quickly advancing work force and, particularly, to make known their needs. We have a lack of communication with these people. I hope that the program of aids for disabled people which will take place under the Government will be much more fulfilling than the ASTEC report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Haines) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.11) — First of all, I congratulate the Australian Science and Technology Council on the production of the report 'Technology and handicapped people'. I, like Senator Coleman, have not had it for a long time but from an examination of the areas with which I have had time to deal I can say it is a very good report. I, unlike Senator Coleman, have not been surprised by the details of the number of people who are handicapped. Over the years as a chemist and through the Senate committees that I have been on I have come to recognise just how large is the number of people in the community who have a handicap as defined by the system which is used in the report, which is, I think , the World Health Organisation system by which it decides whether people are moderately or severely handicapped. Perhaps one of the reasons why we do not all recognise how large is the number of handicapped people in the community is that for a lot of them it is very difficult even to get out of the house. It is extremely difficult, particularly for those who have arthritis, are blind or have disabilities of that severe nature, to get into the community. Therefore, we do not see many of them, but it is important for everyone in Australia to recognise just how many people there are whom we should be helping as much as we possibly can by both the established technology, which is doing a lot of good things, and the newer technology which may be a little more expensive and therefore may not be as easy to provide for such people but which is something that we must work towards in this country. Senator Coleman —Offset by community costs. Senator TOWNLEY —Certainly there is a community cost in helping these people. If we can make them more productive and make their lives more enjoyable-that is the most important thing-I would like to see that done. Everybody here must know some people who are badly handicapped in one way or another. Those of us who are able to get around and have most of our faculties, although sometimes in this place I doubt that-- Senator Watson —Your hair has fallen out. Senator TOWNLEY —My hair has fallen out. One of the reasons why I do not worry about my hair falling out is that I know of the things other people have to put up with. It is a minor thing compared with what some people in this community have to put up with in just getting out of bed or moving across the room and making themselves a cup of tea. For the information of the Senate, I will repeat the details on the number of people who are handicapped. Section 1.10 of the report states that 8.6 per cent-nearly one in 10-of the population is handicapped and a further number is disabled but have no subsequent handicap. But in total 13.2 per cent-that is about one in six-of the community is disabled . The range of technology that is available to help these people is very wide and is becoming wider. It starts with just the simple things that make life easier for people who have difficulty with all of their faculties. I hope that this report is widely read. I particularly encourage the establishment, as proposed in recommendation 4 of the report, of rehabilitation engineering centres in each State. I believe that these should be associated with universities and that each university should be asked to establish an area in its engineering department which could help people and that this be done in conjunction with civilians who are more involved in this area. I believe the amount of research and development that we are doing in Australia in this regard is not nearly enough. It is mentioned in recommendation 5 that we should be doing more. As we have no established large scale programs of research and development directed at helping disabled people, maybe that is something that the Ministers for health from each of the States could look at and work on in conjunction with the rehabilitation engineering sections at the universities of this country. It is something that we should do; it is something that we owe to those people who are not as well off as ourselves. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(5.16) —I too compliment the Australian Science and Technology Council on its report 'Technology and handicapped people'. It is a very interesting document which describes the effort that has been made in other countries, such as Japan, New Zealand and the United States of America, and indicates that Australia is lagging behind with respect to research and development in this important area. This seems to be common in Australia. We are very good at initiating research but, unfortunately, we do not have sufficient regard to the development of those initiatives. Quite often we find that initiatives begun by competent scientists and engineers in Australia are taken advantage of by other countries. I am pleased to see that ASTEC made six recommendations on that-three recommendations to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), two to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and one to the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I was also interested to read in the document a reference to the bionic ear which is a product of research and development first started in the University of Melbourne in 1970. I first learned of that when, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, I was privileged to address a bio-technology dinner in Melbourne. My subject was industrial research and development in Australia. I pointed very strongly to the need for the Government of the day to recognise that in order to develop initiative, for each dollar spent on pure research one must spend up to $10 on developing those initiatives. I was also interested to read that projects are being carried out in the universities and institutes of technology of Australia. They have resulted in very useful products being developed for the handicapped people. Reference is made in the report to the talking typewriter which was developed at the Macquarie University. That is a tremendous step forward for the people who need to use that device. Work is currently being carried out or has been carried out at the University of Adelaide on the development of a system whereby non-vocal physically handicapped people by their eye gaze can quickly and directly select symbols, words, phrases or machine functions from a display matrix in front of them. The report points to some significant effort that is being made in Australia. I support Senator Townley when he directed the Senate's attention to recommendation 5, which stated: That the Minister for Science and Technology be requested to establish a pilot program of standard setting and testing by funding the Standards Association of Australia to establish standards for a limited number of aids for handicapped people, and by funding the National Association of Testing Authorities to arrange for tests against these standards. He also referred to the recommendation of the Minister for Health that rehabilitation engineering centres be established. I think that is a very important recommendation. Senator Townley also referred, under the heading of Opportunities for Research and Development on page 75 of the report, to the fact that there is a risk in Australia at present that research and development technology for disabled people will be less effective than it might be or that it will be wasted because of a lack of co-ordination of effort or a lack of information concerning work elsewhere, particularly in overseas centres. That also is a very important point. I am particularly pleased to read the report in view of the fact that the Secretary to the Australian Science and Technology Council happens to be Peter Dawe, who was formerly Secretary to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. He had a very good training in respect of preparing technical documents such as this report. I compliment him and his staff for the work they did to compile the report. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.21) —I wish briefly to discuss the report on technology and handicapped people. It is a report to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by the Australian Science and Technology Council prepared by the Technological Change Committee. I was most interested, as were other senators, to read of the number of disabled people within our community. As Senator Coleman has said, some 8.6 per cent of the population or more than one and a quarter million Australians are disabled. Of course, that is an immense number and a surprising figure. That represents one in 12 people in the community. In moving through the community one starts to realise that of course this figure is correct. There are so many institutions and associations, for example, in schools or in homes that cater for the disabled person. Wherever one moves these days one finds disabled people. It takes a report such as this to make one consider whether enough is being done for disabled people. After looking at the six recommendations contained in the report and the thought that went into these recommendations, I think it would be agreed that there is much more scope for action, whether it be by the Federal Government or the State governments. However, I hesitate to say 'the community'. It seems to me that most of the action these days in regard to disabled people comes from church and community organisations. One must commend them for the work they are doing today under extreme difficulties. I say that they are working under extreme difficulties because it is only in the last few days-while the Senate has been sitting-that I have, in a small way, been involved in the problems of a sheltered workshop. The sheltered workshop is having difficulty in getting trained people to work for it and to participate. It seems to me that such workers are in very short supply. The organisation I am speaking of is associated with children in the heart of Australia. It is looking for trained people not within the region now, but throughout Australia who can participate and help. I support this report to the Prime Minister very much. I have no doubt that the Federal Government will appreciate the value of such a report. Of course, I expect-no doubt it will happen-that when the report is brought to the Government 's attention and it looks at the recommendations we will see some action. Action is most necessary. Once again I return to the six recommendations of the report which are well and truly backed by fact. Of course, these recommendations should be supported. I make one recommendation too. I go back to the point I made before: I believe that community and church organisations need to be given much more assistance. Of course, finance is a major part. I think the time has come when we must take further action by training people to work in an area in which one in 12 people in Australia is disabled. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(5.26) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The National Technology Strategy discussion draft has been distributed by the Government which is seeking comments on the options and priorities put forward in the draft. It is seeking to develop a consensus position on the community's attitude to technology. Later, in response to the comments elicited by this draft report the Government will be bringing down an overall strategy for technological development in Australia. Incidentally, the report parallels some work done in my own State where the State Minister for Technology has circulated a draft and held seminars-at a local level-to get a fairly clear view of what the community feels about technological development there. The document we are discussing today has been prepared by the Department of Science and Technology. It contains some very disturbing findings; some of them are not entirely new. It makes the point that in Australia a very low proportion of students by world standards is completing secondary school. Also a low proportion of secondary school leavers actually goes on to tertiary institutions . The report also states that there are low levels of labour force retraining occurring in Australia. Finally, there are very low levels of research and development expenditure in this country, something which has received publicity lately. The strategy proposes some targets to be looked at. For example, it is proposed that we seek to achieve a situation by 1995 where 50 per cent of students complete secondary school. Also it is recommended that a target of 20 per cent of school leavers by 1995 actually go on to tertiary institutions. It is recommended that we should aim for a target of retraining one per cent of the work force annually. On my calculations, that would work out at about 60,000 persons each year. It is a very large figure indeed compared with the labour force retraining which has been occurring in Australia. On my calculations, I think it is very close to, if not larger than, the entire work force of the city of Geelong being retrained each year. The strategy proposes targets for bridging and gap, which appears to be very large in this country, between actual research and industrial application of research. In making his ministerial statement on the report in another place, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) I thought came out with some very disturbing figures on technology in this country. For example, Australia ranks very low in the proportion of exports which are technologically based. We have very low levels of export involving technology per head of population. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has ranked Australia twentieth of its member countries in terms of the technological component of exports. The estimate for Australia is some $81 per head. This is below the figure for Spain but slightly ahead of those for Portugal, Greece, Iceland and Turkey. It is rather significant that our close neighbour, New Zealand, has a much higher figure of $110 per head of population in terms of exports involving technology. We are a mere fraction of the position in Switzerland, where the exports involving technology per head of population amount to some $2,500. Another disturbing comparison is with the Netherlands. That country has technologically based exports each year amounting to some $19 billion, Australia has a mere $1 billion, and yet both countries have approximately similar populations, approximately similar numbers of people in employment. The draft discussion paper issued today has a number of priority areas. For example, it states that we should be giving much higher priority to research and development, trying to increase research and development in this country to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 1990 and to 2 per cent in 1995, which would amount to a doubling over today's levels. The report also points out that while Australia does relatively well by world standards in pure research, we are very backward in the application of that research. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(5.34) —I assume that other honourable senators will wish to speak to this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.35) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I realise that there is very little time to discuss this matter at this stage, but I want to draw attention to the fact that this is the first occasion on which the annual report of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation has been tabled in Parliament. It has been done in accordance with the Government's decision. It must be noted that the report is a rather slim volume. Information relating to sensitive intelligence matters has been excluded so that the report can be made public. It is an interesting report. It lacks a great deal of detailed information but there are a number of interesting factors that are worth observing and certainly worth debating in this chamber. The report gives figures of the number of telephone interceptions which have occurred each year. It is interesting that over the last 10 years there was an average of 85.6 telephone interceptions a year. This compares with the average for the previous 10 years of 90.9. there appears to be very little change in that area over the years. The report also has interesting statistics and details in respect of security assessments and the way in which we can assess the extent to which this system is working under the Act. A considerable amount of assessment work takes place. If one looks at the report, one will see that it runs to substantial figures. In the last financial year security assessments amounted to 20,075 cases. Immigration checking is also a very substantial part of ASIO's work and amounted to 39,200 cases. Though it is not possible to determine the results, there have been a considerable number of appeals to the new Security Appeals Tribunal, which I think is operating successfully. At this stage it is not possible to tell the results of the appeals. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory) -by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Tate, I present the fourth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning Drafting Instruction No. 10 of 1984 from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel; Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984; Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill 1983; Bounty (Two-Stroke Engines) Bill 1984; Chicken Meat Research Amendment Bill 1984; Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 ( Treasurer); and Patents Amendment Bill 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator ROBERTSON —On behalf of the Committee, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 5 dated 9 May 1984. Debate resumed from 3 May, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(5.37) —When the report on plant variety rights was presented both the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources and I made some fairly brief remarks, and I intend to be brief now. Let me make it clear that the Committee had a firm opinion on plant variety rights schemes, except for a couple of Committee members who brought in another report which I am sure will be spoken about shortly. Basically our recommendation was to introduce a PVR scheme into this country. Because of discussions we had within the Committee we did suggest that, before a decision was made to include field crops, the Commonwealth suggest to the States that the Australian Agricultural Council examine the possible impact of PVR on field crop breeding in Australia. The Committee had a lot of information before it. I joined the Committee when the Australian Labor Party came into office and I was against the idea of having PVR. I make that quite clear. I had pre-formed notions about it. As the witnesses came before us and we read the submissions it became entirely obvious- there was absolutely no worry in my mind at any rate-that bringing in PVR would not only benefit Australia but in particular it would benefit my State of Tasmania. I am sure that there will be other Tasmanian senators who will be speaking about this in a few minutes. I will leave it to them to say just how it will benefit Tasmania. Senator John Watson and Senator Tate, also from Tasmania, were members of the original Committee. I do not know whether both of them will speak to this report but I am sure that Senator Watson will. I want to mention now the amazing attitude of at least one of the Australian Democrats to this report. After only 10 minutes discussion of the report in the Senate a motion was moved today by Senator Macklin from Queensland which virtually said-I think I am right; if I am wrong I ask Senator Chipp to correct me-that the Democrats will move a motion not to have plant variety rights in this country. Senator Chipp —We are against multinationals getting a monopoly on them. Senator TOWNLEY —Sure, and so are we. If Senator Chipp had read the evidence he would know- Senator Chipp —You would have fooled me. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Chipp has not read the evidence. Had he and had any of his colleagues bothered to read the many pages of evidence that were put before us, there is no doubt that they would have come down in a different way from that which they have now. The Australian Democrats have sided once more with the left wing of this country. It is about time that the people of this country realised that it is a case of, if in doubt, side with the left wing. That is what the Democrats do. Senator Robert Ray —What is wrong with the left wing? Senator TOWNLEY —What is wrong with the left wing? The honourable senator should ask the people of Australia. He should go back to his taxi. The left wing will be the undoing of the Party that is now governing this country. It is amazing that even before we had had 10 minutes of discussion on this report, in which many honourable senators had some input, we found the Democrats coming into the Senate saying: 'We have made up our minds; we do not need to read it'. None of them served on either committee. The Democrats do not bother to serve on many committees in this place. They are lazy; they do not do their work. They obviously have not done their work in this area. I do not care what they think about me for saying publicly that they are lazy but it is about time someone did . They do not do their committee work. I can say that because I happen to be on three Senate standing committees. That keeps me going. In fact, it keeps me more than going. I cannot go to every committee but at least I read the stuff that is put before me in my own time. The Democrats do not bother to do anything. I think one or maybe two are on standing committees but they are not doing their share in this place. It is about time the people of this country recognised that fact. Where are they all? Here comes one now. I can guarantee that they have not read the PVR material because they would not be so stupid as to have moved the motion which they moved earlier. Senator Tate —I am supporting you. Senator TOWNLEY —I mentioned a moment ago that I thought Senator Tate might want to speak about PVR. But these people come into this chamber without having read the information and they move a motion about PVR. Who do they think they are? I was absolutely amazed when Senator Macklin moved that motion today. It was the most petty, stupid and political thing I have ever seen in this Parliament in the 13 years that I have been here. It is about time that some of us said these things and said them a bit more often. It is no good crawling to the Democrats. They just play politics with everything that happens in this place. I was amazed when this motion was moved. I really should not be discussing it; I think I am strictly out of order. Senator Mason —You say some stupid things. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —No, the honourable senator is in order. Senator TOWNLEY —The Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats has just said that I am saying stupid things. Let him come to Tasmania and say that I am saying things when we want to introduce PVR that will benefit Tasmania. Senator Macklin said that it would not benefit Tasmania. I am saying- Senator Gietzelt —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. We are supposed to be discussing a report from the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources dealing with plant variety rights. For the last five minutes we have simply been harangued by Senator Townley about his dislike of the Australian Democrats. That is not the issue before the Senate. The issue before the Senate is plant variety rights. I ask you to ask him to keep to the report of the Standing Committee. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The remarks of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs are correct. I have allowed Senator Townley to range rather widely on the motion moved by the Australian Democrats to the report. I ask him to come back to the question. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Deputy President, the Australian Democrats should have bothered to wait to hear a little more argument from those people who knew something about the issue rather than just jumping in. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. The Australian Democrats have been very foolish, doing what they have done. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Townley to come back to the report before the Senate. Senator TOWNLEY —Mr Deputy President, I request you to ask others not to use my microphone when it is open. That is why we all now have individual microphones in this place. It is not for smart-Alicks from Western Australia to try to use a microphone allocated to me. Senator Jack Evans —You can speak for a whole 10 minutes without talking to the motion. Is that what you are doing-wasting time so that you don't have to speak too long on it? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Jack Evans not to interject. Senator TOWNLEY —I hope that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation mentions that that was Senator Jack Evans from Western Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Townley, you have the call. Please go on. Senator TOWNLEY —The Australian Democrats have again proved how foolish they are , when they are not experts on this matter, by moving a motion. I have spoken for longer than I meant to. Not one of the Democrats came either to the Chairman of the Committee, or to me as Deputy Chairman, to ask any questions about this matter. As far as I know they did not go to the Secretariat either. It is a disgrace. Their moving that motion was a crazy thing to do. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As the honourable senator has not spoken in the debate he is not entitled to speak to his being misrepresented. He can make a statement by leave if he can get leave. Senator MACKLIN —I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —The previous speaker, Senator Townley, made two points in relation to the Australian Democrats that I wish to answer. I will talk on the general substantive matter later. Senator Tate —That is not personal. What is the personal explanation? Senator Mason —He sought leave to make a statement. Senator Archer —No, a personal explanation. Senator Tate —We understood that to be a matter of personal explanation. Senator Archer —We didn't give leave for that. Senator MACKLIN —Mr Deputy President, I wonder whether I could actually make the statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Yes, you may. Senator Macklin has leave to make a statement explaining a personal matter. He may proceed. Senator MACKLIN —Mr Deputy President, the two items are-- Senator Tate —Why don't you ask him what he is seeking leave for? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Macklin has the call. Senator Archer —Oh, come on, you clown. Senator MACKLIN —Mr Deputy President, I ask that that interjection be withdrawn. I find that insulting. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I did not hear the remark. Senator Macklin, what remark are you seeking to have withdrawn? I am told that Senator Archer called Senator Macklin a clown. If so, he should withdraw the remark. Senator Archer —I did call him a clown; I was flattering him. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Archer will withdraw that remark. Senator Archer —Yes. I withdraw. Senator MACKLIN —The two items I wish to raise on what Senator Townley said are as follows: First, he said that I did not go to the Chairman-- Senator Townley —To my knowledge. Senator MACKLIN —He said I did not go to the Chairman or to the Deputy Chairman. In fact I did speak to the Chairman, and if Senator Townley had bothered to check he would have found that out. As the rest of what he had to say was a tissue of make-believe and fictitious humbug his allegation is also in the same category. He did not bother to check whether or not I had spoken to the Chairman . Indeed, I had spoken to the Chairman. The other point was in relation to the Democrats serving on committees. I will tell the Senate, for the sake of Senator Townley, whether or not we carry our load. This is the current situation for the parties in this place in relation to service on committees. The Australian Labor party has 2.36 committee positions per senator; the Liberal Party of Australia has 1.79 positions per senator-- Senator Jack Evans —They are bludgers. Senator MACKLIN —The Democrats have two positions per senator. The National Party-- Senator MacGibbon —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. The interjection by Senator Jack Evans that members of the Liberal Party are bludgers should be withdrawn. It is most unparliamentary. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Jack Evans should withdraw that remark. Senator Jack Evans —I withdraw it. Senator MACKLIN —The figures were: The Labor Party 2.36 positions, the Liberal Party 1.79 positions, the National Party 2 positions and the Democrats 2 positions. Likewise, the independent senator is on two committees. In other words, if one looks at the amount of work which is done on committees by the Australian Democrats one sees that we carry more than our load. The comment on the type of work that the Democrats do is a reflection on our ability to cope with legislation or committee work. At a later stage in this debate I hope to be able to get the call to discuss the Committee report. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-In fairness to the Deputy Chairman I should say that Senator Macklin certainly did speak to me about the report. He said that he did not like it but he gave me no indication that he intended to move a motion, notice of which he gave this morning. I think that is the matter to which the Deputy Chairman referred. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.52) —In the short time I have available I can do no more than briefly deal with even the more important aspects of this report on plant variety rights. I hope all honourable senators will read the report and the dissenting report and draw their own conclusions as to the respective merits of the two different conclusions reached. All I can hope to do now is raise the sorts of objections which led to our dissent and our belief that it would not be in Australia's best interests to set up a broad PVR scheme, with the possible exception of ornamentals. The terms of reference of the Standing Committee on National Resources were to examine the need for and implications of a plant variety rights system. I do not believe that the evidence before us established a need in the sense of providing a benefit for most Australians. There are grave risks attached to any further limitation of access to any factor in the food production cycle. Marketing practices and the growing power of large transnational companies have already led to restrictions of access, particularly in Third World countries but also in Australia. The introduction of PVR would, I believe, further restrict the rights of consumers and growers. The implications of a PVR scheme can be summarised as possible financial benefits to a small group in the community and probable disadvantages for a very large group of consumers and growers. I believe that the introduction of PVR may have similar effects on the consumers of ornamentals but, by definition, nobody eats ornamentals and so the risks attached to PVR will not affect anyone's health or survival. Although there are some doubts as to whether PVR will stimulate growth or the export market of the ornamentals industry, representatives of that industry believe that it will and since my objections to PVR in the food production industries do not apply to ornamentals I have no objection to the introduction of PVR for that group of plants. The Committee report, I think significantly, makes no mention of the motivation of those giving evidence. When so much of the argument, on both sides, is backed up by insufficient hard evidence it is very relevant to look at the motivation of the opponents and proponents of PVR. The private sector interests could have much to gain financially from the introduction of PVR. They also have the resources to present their case in the best light-staff, travel expenses, and paid lobbyists. The opponents of PVR, on the other hand, have nothing personal to gain and limited resources to present their cases. The report itself states that issues such as the possible impact on public sector breeding, market structures, genetic resources, the ownership of food resources, on Third World countries should be of general concern. This concern was widely expressed by groups opposed to PVR but very rarely by its supporters. I believe this fact to be very significant. I think due weight was not given to all the evidence because this motivation factor was ignored or even discounted. The two main arguments presented for PVR are that it will stimulate private breeding in Australia and that it will give increased access to overseas varieties. In the Committee report the claim that PVR will stimulate plant breeding is backed up by reference to European and United Kingdom experience where there is some evidence that private corporations noticeably increased their plant breeding activities after the passing of Acts granting PVR. The assumption of PVR proponents is that this increase in private breeding activity has had universal benefits, but benefits for whom? It is clear that the United Kingdom and United States Acts have allowed large agricultural chemical corporations to make considerable profits out of plant breeding. The evidence offered does not establish that there have been proven benefits to the consuming public or the growers. Some evidence suggests that there has actually been a deterioration in the flavour and nutritional properties of foods which are alleged to have been improved by breeding under PVR. In the case of the United States, which has had PVR since 1970, a very thorough study of the effects of the Plant Variety Protection Act has found that there is no evidence that PVR has triggered large investments in plant breeding research and development or of large improvements in either techniques or plant quality. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which is favourably disposed to the introduction of PVR legislation on the basis of cost effectiveness, had this to say about the argument for the presumed benefits of an increase in private plant breeding research: This argument assumes that increases in research effort would generate net gains to society. However, this point cannot be easily established by economic analysis. Even if benefits of this nature were proven overseas, Australia's situation is not parallel. Australia has a long history of government assistance to rural industries and this is exemplified by the number of government-financed plant breeding research agencies which have been very successful in product improvement and the development of disease resistance. There is a real risk that these activities would suffer under a PVR scheme in a relatively small market, which Australia is, particularly if some future government, committed to privatisation of the economy and small government, were to remove potentially profitable activity from the public sector, leaving it to do the expensive work, such as the development of genetic resistance to disease, while handing over the exploitation of this research to the private sector. The claim that the introduction of PVR legislation would lead to vastly increased access to overseas varieties is not supported by convincing evidence. Appendix 3 to the report lists instances where it has been claimed that Australians have been refused access to plant varieties on the basis of our lack of PVR protection. There is a lack of documentation of these claims and no details of the extent to which the claims have been checked as to the grounds for refusal or the availability of substitutes. Again, hard evidence is lacking and submissions were often in conflict on facts. Time does not permit me to cover all the other arguments put forward by the proponents of PVR. Much of the evidence was contradicted by other evidence, often within the same industry group. For example, it was said that seed exports were being prevented by a lack of PVR but the same submission refers to the successful export of cauliflower seeds to countries with PVR. The seed export industry earns at present about $5m a year and one of the successful seed exporters told me last week that improved production and marketing techniques by other producers could markedly increase that figure. At least some of the ills which PVR claims to be able to cure are embedded in the marketing system rather than at the point of production. A prime example is the takeover of the retail market by the tasteless tough tomato called floridade, produced for easy transport and packaging with no regard for the needs or tastes of the consumer. In the export sphere, the balance of payments against countries which are potential markets is one significant factor restricting the market, as is the existence of the EEC. I doubt, for example, whether PVR could stop the decline of the soft fruit canning industry but using the plant to can other varieties such as the so-called new semi-tropical fruits in particular, like feijoas and lychees, might help. I am sure that more efficient effort in the export field would pay off, as would the promotion of varieties which are currently grown but hard to obtain such as tomatoes with flavour and apple varieties which have disappeared from the shops in recent years. The terms of reference for the inquiry did not include alternatives to PVR which might have achieved the same stated objectives. But the Committee did receive submissions proposing alternatives and I know that others are being discussed and worked on in the community. These should be investigated in the same depth as PVR has been investigated. The recommendation of the dissenting report is that any PVR scheme be restricted to ornamentals and that other means be investigated-for example, improved marketing procedures-to overcome the difficulties claimed as the rationale for PVR. I would have no argument with most of the recommendations of the report dealing with implementation, if a PVR scheme on this restricted scale were introduced at some time in the future. Finally, I thank the Committee Chairman and all the Committee staff for their help, particularly to those of us who were new to the Committee and had to examine a great deal of material and submissions already made to the previous Committee. Debate interrupted. Senator DURACK(Western Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: 1. That the following Regulations and Ordinance be referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances: (a) Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations (Amendment) as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 331 and made under the Customs Act 1901; (b) Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 332 and made under the Customs Act 1901; (c) Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 59 of 1983 and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910; and (d) Classification of Publications Regulations, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Regulations 1984 No. 2 and made under the Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983. 2. That the Committee examine whether the aforementioned Regulations and Ordinance, individually or severally: (a) restrict unduly the Commonwealth's existing powers to prevent the importation of publications, including videotapes- (i) promoting or encouraging violence, (ii) promoting or encouraging the use of hard drugs, and (iii) depicting hard core pornography, sexual violence or other gross obscenities; (b) restrict unduly the Commonwealth's existing power to require videos not imported for public exhibition to be registered by the Film Censorship Board before release by Customs; and (c) restrict unduly the power of the Commonwealth to protect children from exposure to publications in (a) (i), (ii) and (iii). 3. That the Committee advise the Senate whether, in light of this examination, the Regulations or Ordinance contain matter more appropriate for Parliamentary enactment or revised delegated legislation. 4. That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, for the purpose of the inquiry, the membership of the Committee be increased to nine members. 5. That one of the two additional members be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats and the other be nominated by the independent senator. 6. That the Committee report to the Senate on or before 29 May 1984. Debate resumed. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(6.02) —Plant variety rights give property rights to an owner through the registration of material created by the selective breeding of seeds, cuttings and root stocks to exclude others from selling that variety, or reproducing it except for their own use, or importing and exporting those plants covered by the registration. It is unfortunate that Australia, a major agricultural country, is still without a PVR scheme, thereby denying Australian farmers, horticulturists and gardeners greater access to improved varieties developed overseas. Nearly all advanced countries have statutory rights for plant breeders. They include the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, the Soviet Union, Switzerland, even Argentina, and many others. The basic question must surely be: Why has Australia been so slow in putting the necessary legislation on the statute book? A submission from the General Jones organisation stated that the variety of peas and beans which are available in Australia and which are so essential for Tasmanian agriculture has remained unchanged for the last 10 to 15 years. Australian processors are increasingly finding it difficult to compete on both the domestic market and the export market because of cost and quality factors. Grapes, nectarines, peaches, cherries, plums, pomme fruits, fruit trees in general, rootstock for stone fruits, almond beans, rapeseed, currants, ornamental plants, blackcurrants, potatoes, peas, strawberries, sweet corn and numerous other hemisphere crops and pasture seeds are just some of the varieties which are denied to Australian producers. The supply of seed for inclusion in a material collection and the uplifting of facilities for the preservation of generic reserves are two of the very good recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Resources which I hope the Government will implement as part of any PVR legislation. Further, the seed breeding firm of Yates regarded vegetable breeding as a neglected area of Australian agriculture. It believed that it would be upgraded substantially and stimulated by a PVR scheme. The grass seed industry in Australia-again, an industry which is pretty important to Tasmania-is in fairly serious trouble because of its inability to compete with improved varieties from overseas. The Managing Director of Valley Seeds Pty Ltd, in a report to the committee, said that the weakness of our plant breeding effort meant that only 53 per cent of the Australian market could be satisfied by local breeders. What a disgrace for a major agricultural country, with its great plains and its need for seeds! There is further potential in the export market for Australian native flora with the implementation of a PVR scheme. A number of the submissions which oppose PVR did so on the premise of its repercussions to the Third World, claiming problems of generic erosion and increased costs of seeds to those countries. I believe that if there is a weakness in the report it is its lack of depth in analysing this problem and in providing counter-arguments to the matters raised and quoted in Mooney's book Seeds of the Earth, particularly as the Senate report comes out in favour of a recommended PVR scheme. Because of the interest in this debate and other matters , I will limit my comments in the hope that this Government will take speedy action to implement these recommendations and go further to make sure that field crops are included in any future PVR scheme. Senator HEARN(Tasmania)(6.06) —The purpose of the reference on plant variety rights was to examine the need for and the implication of a plant variety rights system. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources does not appear to have examined the question of the need in the present situation, particularly as it affects the people and the consumers in Australia. Rather it appears to address the needs of a small self-interest pressure group of plant breeders. Whilst the report acknowledges the concern expressed in many submissions about the effect of plant variety rights on Third World countries, the preferential treatment to foreign breeder companies, the danger of monopolies, et cetera, the majority report still recommends that PVR should go ahead. There seems little evidence about lack of access to overseas varieties. While the appendix 3 list regarding access gives some evidence of problems, the evidence is vague and the strength of the case is not supported or convincing. The report, as has been pointed out, makes no mention of the motivation of those who gave evidence. Yet because of the lack of hard evidence this fact is very important. Supporters of PVR stand to make a financial gain from its introduction, whereas the opponents of PVR are motivated by their concern that PVR will mean that all food chains in Australia could be controlled by a few foreign-owned corporations and that PVR is not in the interests of Third World countries. There is little enthusiasm for the development through our own initiative of our present resources or possibilities of adjustment of our present system which would still ensure that plants and seeds remain public property. Lawrence Hills, the Director of the Henry Doubleday Research Association, says: The largest seedsman in the world is not Suttons of Britain, Burpee of the U.S. A. or Vilmorin of France. It is Royal Dutch Shell who have been swallowing small seedsmen until such craftsmen are a vanishing species. . . . . In the week that Britain passed what is called 'Plant Breeder's Rights'- legislation with hardly any publicity except to the seed trade-Messrs. Rank- Hovis-MacDougall took over 84 seedsmen, and they finished up owning over a hundred, being owned themselves, together with Messrs. Vilmorin and many Dutch, German and American firms, by Royal Dutch Shell. I do not believe that Australia can ignore the effects of plant variety rights on Third World countries. I am sure that the Australian people have a deep concern for those people of the world who suffer constantly from a lack of food and the 40,000 children who die each day from starvation. There is very great danger in a narrow control of the food chain and I think that danger was illustrated by the Christian Conference of Asia News in January 1981 when it quoted the United States Agriculture Secretary as saying: I think food is the greatest weapon we have over the next 20 years . . . The best way to use that food is to tie countries to us. They become dependent on us . They cannot help it. They need our food. They keep buying more and more every year. As they become dependent, they're going to be far more reluctant to upset us. I think it is immoral that people of the world who are hungry should be subjected to the kind of blackmail that is suggested in the quotation. In November 1981, in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, an initiative by Third World countries for an international plant gene bank and the formation of a legally binding international convention to govern the exchange of plant genetic resources, were discussed. That resolution, Resolution 6/81, did not have an FAO forum again until March 1983 at the conference in Rome. It is of interest that Sweden, home of three of the world's largest seed enterprises took the lead in opposition to that Resolution. At the conference of FAO, the twenty-second session in Rome, from 5 to 23 November 1983, world food security was discussed. The conference stressed the importance of safeguarding the natural resource base needed for future agricultural production and reviewed the progress on the plan of action to strengthen world food security. The Conference adopted Resolution 8/83, an international undertaking on plant genetic resources. Resolution 8/83 states: Recognizing that: (a) plant genetic resources are a heritage of mankind to be preserved and to be freely available to use, . . . of present and future generations; It continues: (b) it is the responsibility of governments to undertake such activities as are needed to ensure the exploration, collection, conservation, maintenance, evaluation, documentation and exchange of plant genetic resources in the interest of all mankind; to provide financial and technological support to institutions engaged in such activities; and to ensure the equitable and unrestricted distribution of the benefits of plant breeding; Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard page 49 and the remaining pages of the report. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Archer —What is she seeking to incorporate? Senator HEARN —I am seeking to incorporate the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's report. Senator Archer —How much? Senator HEARN —It is about three pages. Leave granted. The report read as follows- 285. On the basis, the Conference adopted the following Resolution: 1/ Resolution 8/83 INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKING ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES 2/ THE CONFERENCE, Recalling its Resolution 6/81 on plant genetic resources, Recognizing that: (a) plant genetic resources are a heritage of mankind to be preserved, and to be freely available for use, for the benefit of present and future generations; (b) full advantage can be derived from plant genetic resources through an effective programme of plant breeding, and that, while most such resources in the form of wild plants and old land races are to be found in developing countries, training and facilities for plant survey and identification and plant breeding are insufficient or even not available in many of those countries; (c) plant genetic resources are indispensable for the genetic improvement of cultivated plants, but have been insufficiently explored and are in danger of erosion and loss; Considering that: (a) the international community should adopt a concrete set of principles designed to promote the exploration, preservation, documentation, availability and full use of relevant plant genetic resources essential to agricultural development; (b) it is the responsibility of governments to undertake such activities as are needed to ensure the exploration, collection, conservation, maintenance, evaluation, documentation and exchange of plant genetic resources in the interest of all mankind; to provide financial and technological support to institutions engaged in such activities; and to ensure the equitable and unrestricted distribution of the benefits of plant breeding; (c) progress in plant breeding is essential to the present and future development of agriculture; and the establishment or strengthening of plant breeding and seed production capabilities, at the national, sub-regional and regional levels, is a prerequisite to making efficient use of international co- operation in the exploration, collection, conservation, maintenance, evaluation, documentation and exchange of plant genetic resources; 1. Adopts the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources attached hereto; 2. Requests the Director-General to transmit this Resolution and the attached International Undertaking to Member Nations of FAO, to non-Member Nations which are members of the United Nations, any of its Specialized Agencies or the International Atomic Energy Agency, and to autonomous international institutions having responsibilities with respect to plant genetic resources, and to invite them to inform him whether or not they are interested in the Undertaking and to what extent they are in a position to give effect to the principles contained in the Undertaking; 3. Urges Governments and the aforesaid institutions to give effect to the principles of the Undertaking and to support and participate in the international arrangements outlined therein; 4. Endorses the Director-General's proposal for the establishment as soon as possible, within the framework of FAO, of an intergovernmental committee or other body on plant genetic resources open to all States interested in the Undertaking. (Adopted 23 November 1983) 1/ the delegation of New Zealand reserved its position on the text of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources because there was no provision which took account of plant breeders' rights. 2/ the delegations of Canada, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Japan, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of America reserved their positions with respect to the Resolution and the international Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources. Annex to Resolution 8/83 INTERNATIONAL UNDERTAKING ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES I. GENERAL Article 1-Objective 1. The objective of this Undertaking is to ensure that plant genetic resources of economic and/or social interest, particularly for agriculture, will be explored, preserved, evaluated and made available for plant breeding and scientific purposes. This Undertaking is based on the universally accepted principle that plant genetic resources are a heritage of mankind and consequently should be available without restriction. Article 2-Definitions and Scope 2.1 In this Undertaking: (a) ''plant genetic resources'' means the reproductive or vegetative propagating material of the following categories of plants: (i) cultivated varieties (cultivars) in current use and newly developed varieties; (ii) obsolete cultivars; (iii) primitive cultivars (land races); (iv) wild and week species, near relatives of cultivated varieties; (v) special genetic stocks (including elite and current breeders' lines and mutants); (b) ''base collection of plant genetic resources'' means a collection of seed stock or vegetative propagating material (ranging from tissue cultures to whole plants) held for long-term security in order to preserve the genetic variation for scientific purposes and as a basis for plant breeding; (c) ''active collection'' means a collection which complements a base collection, and is a collection from which seed samples are drawn for distribution, exchange and other purposes such as multiplication and evaluation; (d) ''institution'' means an entity established at the international or national level, with or without legal personality, for purposes related to the exploration, collection, conservation, maintenance, evaluation or exchange of plant genetic resources; (e) ''centre'' means an institution holding a base or active collection of plant genetic resources, as described in Article 7. 2.2 This Undertaking relates to the plant genetic resources described in para. 2 .1 (a), of all species of economic and/or social interest, particularly for agriculture at present or in the future, and has particular reference to food crops. Article 3-Exploration of Plant Genetic Resources 3.1 Governments adhering to this Undertaking will organize or arrange for missions of exploration, conducted in accordance with recognized scientific standards, to identify potentially valuable plant genetic resources that are in danger of becoming extinct in the country concerned, as well as other plant genetic resources in the country which may be useful for development but whose existence or essential characteristics are at present unknown, in particular: (a) known land races or cultivars in danger of becoming extinct due to their abandonment in favour of the cultivation of new cultivars; (b) the wild relatives of cultivated plants in areas identified as centres of genetic diversity or natural distribution; (c) species which are not actually cultivated but may be used for the benefit of mankind as a source of food or raw materials (such as fibres, chemical compounds, medicine or timber). 3.2 Special efforts will be made, in the context of Article 3.1, where the danger of extinction of plant species is certain, or is likely, having regard to circumstances such as the clearance of vegetation from tropical rain forests and semi-arid lands with a view to the expansion of cultivated areas. Article 4-Preservation, Evaluation and Documentation of Plant Genetic Resources 4.1 Appropriate legislative and other measures will be maintained and, where necessary, developed and adopted to protect and preserve the plant genetic resources of plants growing in areas of their natural habitat in the major centres of genetic diversity. 4.2 Measures will be taken, if necessary through international co-operation, to ensure the scientific collection and safeguarding of materials in areas where important plant genetic resources are in danger of becoming extinct on account of agricultural or other development. 4.3 Appropriate measures will also be taken with respect to plant genetic resources held, outside their natural habitats, in gene banks or living collections of plants. Governments and institutions adhering to this Undertaking will, in particular, ensure that the said resources are conserved and maintained in such a way as to preserve their valuable characteristics for use in scientific research and plant breeding, and are also evaluated and fully documented. Article 5-Availability of Plant Genetic Resources 5. It will be the policy of adhering Governments and institutions having plant genetic resources under their control to allow access to samples of such resources, and to permit their export, where the resources have been requested for the purposes of scientific research, plant breeding or genetic resource conservation. The samples will be made available free of charge, on the basis of mutual exchange or on mutually agreed terms. II. INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION Article 6-General 6. International co-operation will, in particular, be directed to: (a) establishing or strengthening the capabilities of developing countries, where appropriate on a national or sub-regional basis, with respect to plant genetic resources activities, including plant survey and identification, plant breeding and seed multiplication and distribution, with the aim of enabling all countries to make full use of plant genetic resources for the benefit of their agricultural development; (b) intensifying international activities in preservation, evaluation, documentation, exchange of plant genetic resources, plant breeding, germ plasm maintenance, and seed multiplication. This would include activities carried out by FAO and other concerned agencies in the UN System; it would also include activities of other institutions, including those supported by the CGIAR. The aim would be to progressively cover all plant species that are important for agriculture and other sectors of the economy, in the present and for the future; (c) supporting the arrangements outlined in Article 7, including the participation in such arrangements of governments and institutions, where appropriate and feasible; (d) considering measures, such as the strengthening or establishment of funding mechanisms, to finance activities relating to plant genetic resources. Article 7-International Arrangements 7.1 The present international arrangements, being carried out under the auspices of FAO and other organisations in the United Nations System, by national and regional institutions and institutions supported by the CGIAR, in particular the IBPGR, for the exploration, collection, conservation, maintenance, evaluation, documentation, exchange and use of plant genetic resources will be further developed and, where necessary, complemented in order to develop a global system so as to ensure that: (a) there develops an internationally co-ordinated network of national, regional and international centres, including an international network of base collections in gene banks, under the auspices or the jurisdiction of FAO, that have assumed the responsibility to hold, for the benefit of the international community and on the principle of unrestricted exchange, base or active collections of the plant genetic resources of particular plant species; (b) the number of such centres will be progressively increased so as to achieve as complete a coverage as necessary, in terms of species and geographical distribution, account also being taken of the need for duplication, of the resources to be safeguarded and preserved; (c) the activities of the centres that are related to the exploration, collection, conservation, maintenance, rejuvenation, evaluation and exchange of plant genetic resources will be carried out with due account being taken of scientific standards; (d) sufficient support in funds and facilities will be provided, at the national and international levels, to enable the centres to carry out their tasks; (e) a global information system, under the co-ordination of FAO, related to plant genetic resources maintained in the aforementioned collections, and linked to systems established at the national, sub-regional and regional levels, will be developed on the basis of relevant arrangements that already exist; (f) early warning will be given to FAO, or to any institution designed by FAO, of any hazards that threaten the efficient maintenance and operation of a centre , with a view to prompt international action to safeguard the material maintained by the centre; (g) the IBPGR pursues and develops its present activities, within its terms of reference in liaison with FAO; (h) (i) the general expansion and improvement of related professional and institutional capability within developing countries, including training within appropriate institutions in both developed and developing countries, is adequately funded; and (ii) the overall activity within the Undertaking ultimately ensures a significant improvement in the capacity of developing countries for the production and distribution of improved crop varieties, as required to support major increases in agricultural production, especially in developing countries. 7.2 Within the context of the global system any Governments or institutions that agree to participate in the Undertaking, may, furthermore, notify the Director- General of FAO that they wish the base collection or collections for which they are responsible to be recognized as part of the international network of base collections in gene banks, under the auspices or the jurisdiction of FAO. The centre concerned will, whenever requested by FAO, make material in the base collection available to participants in the Undertaking, for purposes of scientific research, plant breeding or genetic resources conservation, free of charge, on the basis of mutual exchange or on mutually agreed terms. Article 8-Financial Security 8.1 Adhering Governments, and financing agencies, will, individually and collectively, consider adopting measures that would place activities relevant to the objective of this Undertaking on a firmer financial basis, with special consideration for the need of developing countries to strengthen their capabilities in genetic resource activities, plant breeding and seed multiplication. 8.2 Adhering Governments, and financing agencies, will, in particular, explore the possibility of establishing mechanisms which would guarantee the availability of funds that could be immediately mobilized to meet situations of the kind referred to in Article 7.1 (f). 8.3 Adhering Governments and institutions, and financing agencies, will give special consideration to requests from FAO for extra-budgetary funds, equipment or services needed to meet situations of the kind referred to in Article 7.1 (f) . 8.4 The funding of the establishment and operation of the international network, insofar as it imposes additional costs on FAO, in the main will be funded from extra-budgetary resources. Article 9-Monitoring of Activities and Related Action by FAO 9.1 FAO will keep under continuous review the international situation concerning the exploration, collection, conservation, documentation, exchange and use of plant genetic resources. 9.2 FAO will, in particular, establish an intergovernmental body to monitor the operation of the arrangements referred to in Article 7, and to take or recommend measures that are necessary or desirable in order to ensure the comprehensiveness of the global system and the efficiency of its operations in line with the Undertaking. 9.3 In the performance of its responsibilities outlined in Part II of this Undertaking, FAO will act in consultation with those Governments that have indicated to FAO their intention to support the arrangements referred to in Article 7. III. OTHER PROVISIONS Article 10-Phytosanitary Measures 10. This Undertaking is without prejudice to any measures taken by Governments- in line with the provisions of the International Plant Protection Convention, adopted in Rome on 6 December 1951-to regulate the entry of plant genetic resources with the aim of preventing the introduction or spread of plant pests. Article 11-Information on the Implementation of this Undertaking 11. At the time of adhering, Governments and institutions will advise the Director-General of FAO of the extent to which they are in a position to give effect to the principles contained in the Undertaking. At yearly intervals, they will provide the Director-General of FAO with information on the measures that they have taken or propose to take to achieve the objective of this Undertaking. 286. It was further recommended to establish, within the framework of FAO, an intergovernmental committee or other body open to all governments interested in the Undertaking, which would, in particular, monitor the operation of the international arrangements proposed in the Undertaking. 287. The Conference adopted the following Resolution: Resolution 9/83 ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMISSION ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES 1/ THE CONFERENCE, Having adopted Resolution 8/83 ''International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources'' which includes the text of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (hereinafter referred to as ''the Undertaking'') as an Annex to that Resolution, and Having noted that Article 9.2 of ''the Undertaking'' states that FAO will establish an inter-governmental body to monitor the operation of the arrangements referred to in Article 7 of ''the Undertaking'' and take or recommend measures that are necessary or desirable to ensure the comprehensiveness of the global system and the efficiency of its operations in line with ''the Undertaking'', Requests the Council to establish at its next session a Commission on Plant Genetic Resources in accordance with Article VI, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, open to all Member Nations and Associate Members, which would meet at the same time as the regular sessions of the Committee on Agriculture. The Terms of Reference of the Commission shall be as follows: (a) to monitor the operation of the arrangements referred to in Article 7 of '' the Undertaking'', (b) to recommend measures that are necessary or desirable in order to ensure the comprehensiveness of the global system and the efficiency of its operation in line with ''the Undertaking'', and in particular, (c) to review all matters relating to the policy, programmes and activities of FAO in the field of plant genetic resources, and to give advice to the Committee on Agriculture or, where appropriate, to the Committee on Forestry. (Adopted 23 November 1983) Relations and Consultations with International Organizations Recent Developments in the United Nations System of Interest to FAO 2/ 288. The Conference recognized the multiplicity and wide range of FAO's cooperation with the organizations and bodies of the United Nations System. It commended the Organization on the positive role it played and urged for the continuation of such role. 289. The Conference expressed concern at the decline in multilateral aid to agriculture. It welcomed ECOSOC Resolution 1983/77 urging the international community to keep food and agriculture as its highest priority and emphasizing the need for adequate external resources, especially through multilateral channels. 1/ The delegations of Canada, France, Germany (Federal Republic of), Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States of America reserved their positions with respect to this Resolution. 2/ C 83/19; C 83/19-Corr. 1; C 83/19-Sup. 1; C 83/26; C 83/INF/18; C 83/LIM/1; C 83/II/PV/13; C 83/II/PV/14; C 83/II/PV/18; C 83/PV/21. Senator HEARN —Plant variety rights are presented in this report largely as an economic issue. I do not believe that that is sufficient. The plant variety rights issue is also a moral issue. The plant is a living organism upon which all other life depends. No part of it should become the exclusive property of any one person or group. Australia could take the lead in the resolution of the North-South problems that face Third World countries, the problems of inequality and food distribution, by opposing plant variety rights and supporting Third World countries' initiative of promoting an international convention on plant genetic resources. I believe that there has not been sufficient debate on alternatives to PVR in this country. I think that the concern of many disinterested people-I mean disinterested in the financial sense-has not been fully considered. I hope that this Government and the people of Australia will express wider concern for the people of the world who need food rather than merely being concerned with their own financial benefit and interest. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! Before I call Senator Archer, I draw attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's gallery of the Rt. Hon. Lord Willis of Chislehurst, a member of the House of Lords in England. I extend to the right honourable gentleman a warm and friendly welcome to Canberra. Debate resumed. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.15) —I welcome the report on plant variety rights that has been put down by the Standing Committee on National Resources. I give enormous credit to Senator Robertson, in particular, and to former Senator Thomas, his predecessor, and the two committees that worked on this subject. I fully appreciate the genuine political and philosophical reservations that various people have in regard to plant variety rights. I have looked at every one of the reservations I possibly could. I have studied them closely. I have endeavoured to ascertain the rights and wrongs of them. I give credit to the committees as I believe that they have done the same. Naturally, I am impressed, as I recognise that the Standing Committee on National Resources, with all the reservations that it had, concluded that the consideration of plant variety rights legislation should be recommended. We must remember that plant variety rights are a fact of life. We cannot say that we do not want them or that they do not exist, because they do. They exist throughout the world and we cannot stop them. Other countries will retain them. Without them we would be the only losers. We must learn how to control them, to benefit from them and to see how people in the rest of the world can also benefit from what we do. I am sick and tired of all the cotton wool and rubbish talked about these issues. I have heard about tasteless apples, potatoes that will not mash and all that sort of thing over and over again. One factor determines whether a product will sell: It must have a market. If people do not want to buy a product they will not buy it. If they do not want to eat it they will not buy it. If people do not want to buy it they will not grow it. That is the test in regard to any product in the world. It is rubbish for people to say that they will be eating colourless apples and flavourless potatoes. Products will only sell if they have value. The benefits of plant variety rights can be considerable. I think that the furphies are very hard to substantiate. Of course, the best place to look for the alternatives and for the truth of these matters is, of course, in the dissenting report. I had a good, quick look at the dissenting report and, sure enough, just as I expected, there was nothing in that report which told me anything to the contrary. In the real world there is already considerable excitement at the prospect of getting new material. People who feed the nation and who depend on that for a livelihood, people who produce the commodities for our export trade to keep those who do not produce in business and in jobs are very excited about plant variety rights. I am also. I have had numerous calls already from people who are excited to see when something is going to happen. Much has been said about the increase in prices, that all that plant variety rights will do will be to increase the price of every commodity. There is no evidence to support that. I have heard about the poor Filipinos and people in Third World countries who will be paying twice as much for wheat and who will be in the grips of someone or other. Where is the evidence for that? Again, if the Filipinos or anybody else do not see the virtue in buying something that they do not have now, they will not buy it. There is no reason for someone to say: 'When I was a child the apples were so much better'. Where are those apples? If they were so much better, they would be grown in every yard. If they are not now produced it is because they did not survive. They either did not have the capacity to survive or people did not want them. I know of varieties of potatoes which might have been very good but which did not survive. They could not stand the rigours of the present system and they went out. They did not go out because of plant variety rights. They went out because they were inferior. Of course, when one gets on to the subject of inferior products, one talks about merit. Merit has caused much discussion. How can one talk about merit when one is talking about a commodity that might be grown in a range of soils and climates or in the conditions of other countries? Merit is something that everyone sees in his own eye, like beauty. The Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, says a lot about new industries, new avenues, new employment and so on. This doubtless offers him exactly that sort of area. This is new technology, the 1990s stuff about which he talks so much. It offers great opportunity for a range of people around Australia. While Senator Robertson is present, I should like again to say that I appreciate the very careful and thoughtful wording that went into many of the recommendations. I know that the job was hard. I know what both sides of the argument were. The Committee and the staff that helped did a very fine job in wording the recommendations in the excellent way they did. I recommend caution. I commend the monitoring suggested and the reviews suggested. I have had an interest in this subject for many years. Unless we make the most of it now, the whole thing will by-pass us. As we read reports of what is happening around the world, we come to know that Australia's standard of living relative to that of other countries is declining. We used to enjoy a very high slot. The reason we have slipped is that our technology has not gone ahead. Here we have an obvious case where technology is available and we have the expertise; but no, we would rather go further down the list. I certainly do not want to be there too. We must make plant variety rights work. We must encourage its use and make it work for us. There are benefits and we have to utilise them fully. I commend the Committee for the thought and balance of the report. The Government should accept the report and decide to proceed and produce legislation in accordance with the recommendations, and give Australian industry the opportunity to catch up with other countries which similarly have found the need for the use of such a system and which now have the benefits to show for it. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(6.22) —The report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on plant variety rights, which was brought down last Tuesday in this House, recommends that plant variety rights be introduced on fodder, pasture and horticultural products. The Committee travelled extensively around Australia and the evidence that was presented to it overwhelmingly supported the introduction of PVR in this country. I wish to place on record my appreciation to Senator Robertson for the friendly way in which he conducted the Committee hearings, and my appreciation to the staff who helped us to produce the report. The nurserymen's associations, the horticultural industry and the Australian Horticultural Growers Council, which represent the commercial fruit and vegetable producers, said in evidence that the PVR legislation would give their growers access to new breeds of fruit and vegetables, which would allow the growers to produce more and to create a greater yield, and to have a better acceptance on the market. I should like to give the Senate an example of a New Zealand nectarine called nectar red. This particular nectar red nectarine which is imported from New Zealand is wiping the Australian-grown nectarine completely off the market. The imported New Zealand nectarine is twice as big, it has a beautiful colour, lovely flesh, and a great taste. Our nectarine growers cannot compete with this imported fruit. Our fruit and vegetable growers do not have access to the breeding stocks and are forced to place on the market an inferior product, which naturally is inferior in purchasing appeal and consequently cannot compete with imported fruit. This is only one example of the problems facing our horticulture industry. Similar examples can be found with a number of other fruits that are coming into Australia. This legislation is essential to allow rural producers to compete with imports. Australia is in a unique situation because of its geographical position. Our winter is the Northern Hemisphere's summer. This would allow us to export vegetables to the Continent and it would give us a great chance to increase exports of rural produce. Australia already has an export industry in fruit and vegetables worth $56m. If PVR were introduced, it would increase that sum many times. Australia has 30,000 farming families involved in horticulture. The crops they produce are worth $1,000m. This type of farming is labour- intensive and provides jobs for semi-skilled and unskilled workers. I ask Senator Zakharov and Senator Georges to consider those people because, if we can use PVR, we shall be able to increase our production and make our growers more competitive in world markets. That is one thing that they have not considered. Senator Zakharov —There are other ways of making them more competitive. Had I had the time, I would have discussed them. Senator BOSWELL —Senator Zakharov did not raise them in the Committee. This Government must realise that it cannot tax farmers out of existence, as it is trying to do with government inspection levies on all rural produce that is going out of the country at present. Evidence was given to the Committee that because of the relatively small domestic and export industries in fruit and vegetables those industries did not gain access to the public funding of field crops. That is only fair, too, because the public funding must be directed to the crops that make the major contribution to this nation-wheat, barley and those sorts of crops. It was certainly my understanding that the Committee decided that the only way in which the horticultural industry, the flower industry and the wine growers would be able to get access to overseas gene banks was to import this technology from overseas, and that the only way this could occur would be to bring in PVR legislation, and the sooner the better. Therefore , I was very surprised when Senator Zakharov and Senator Georges submitted a minority report-particularly as I do not remember Senator Georges ever attending a meeting of that Committee. I hope that Senator Georges adopts a much more sensible and responsible attitude in his chairmanship of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare, about which the rural people of Australia are terribly worried. I hope that he attends a few of that Committee's meetings as its Chairman. The Committee was given evidence that a gigantic market was available in Europe and America for both our native flora and our foliage plants. Already Australia is partaking of this market, which is growing. I had discussions today with a nurseryman in my State, who told me that the market is unlimited as long as he can get freight costs that will enable him to be competitive. That is one matter the Senate should take up at a later date. The overwhelming weight of evidence supported the view that PVR legislation should be introduced in Australia. The Australian Democrats have indicated today, in a notice of motion given by Senator Macklin, that they will be opposing PVR. This makes it very obvious to the people in rural Australia that the Democrats do not understand what people in the rural areas want. Senator Macklin —Go out and talk to them. Senator BOSWELL —I go out and talk to them and I know what they want. Senator Haines —Haven't you made a deal with the Labor Party? Senator BOSWELL —I have not made any deals. If you knew what the people of rural Australia wanted, you would not have sought an animal-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Boswell, will you please address your remarks through the Chair. Senator BOSWELL —If the Democrats knew what the rural people of Australia wanted , Mr President, they would not have sought a committee on animal welfare that would make terrible impositions on people in the rural areas. For stock growers it could have tremendous implications, particularly if Senator Georges serves on the Committee. I recommend that this report be adopted. I ask the Government to implement the legislation recommended in the report. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.30) —The issue contained in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources entitled 'Plant Variety Rights' has been on the political agenda for some time and tends to arouse very strong emotion in the Australian community. I think the debate today indicated yet again that that emotion still exists. I do not think people should allow their emotions to get too heated, however, because the Government is unlikely to introduce any legislation on this subject before the next election; one should probably contain oneself until at least after the next election to see what might occur. To refer specifically to the report, undoubtedly if the recommendations of the Committee were accepted the legislation introduced as a result would be better legislation than that which the previous Liberal-National Party Government had intended to introduce. The Committee's report is effective and useful to the extent that it suggests that a number of monitoring devices ought to be included in the legislation and, probably most important of all, that merit testing be included in it. These items would undoubtedly improve the Bill which was the subject of the original reference before the last election. In relation to merit testing, there is an argument, which argument was rehearsed in the Plant Variety Rights Bill, in the materials which accompanied the Commitee's report and by Senator Archer again today, that an item will be better able to survive if there is a market operation. However, I believe the area that Senator Archer was talking abut is not commensurate with the broad acre crops in relation to which that type of operation just does not occur. It is only to speak out of ignorance for people to suggest that broad acre crops respond to that type of market operation. They have never done so in Australia and are never likely to do so for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the testing undertaken in the Australian context in relation to broad acre crops is so complex that it will not enable a grower to be responsive to it in any way. Over and above that, the Australian Democrats maintain the position they took on the previous Bill. It is the reverse position to that argued by other speakers who, I believe from listening to the debate, share the views I have. Our position is that we believe that, if we are to make such a significant and important move in relation to an extremely basic item in Australian society, evidence must be provided that that move will be for the benefit of the wider community. From looking at the evidence presented to the Committee and at what the Committee extracted from that evidence, we still do not believe that that has been proven. Until it is we will find ourselves unable to support such legislation. If it is proven to our satisfaction we could support it. That is the position we had previously; it is the position we still hold because we do not believe that it has been advanced. Since there is a minute or so left, I will refer to only one item in the report and in the evidence, that is, the Butler report from the United States. That shows that on both sides there has been an extraordinary amount of exaggeration and emotion and an extraordinary number of claims not backed up by evidence. I said on the last occasion, and I repeat, that there is no evidence for many of the wild allegations about plant variety rights, whether for or against them. When one looks at the report one finds that essentially, according to Butler, plant variety rights do not produce dramatic effects one way or the other. In other words, it is a fairly neutral device that does not deliver terribly much. We believe that if we are to move in such a sensitive area we need something a lot stronger than that. We believe there needs to be a much stronger argument. In the appendices to the Committee's report there appears an item which was circulated when the Bill was originally introduced into this chamber. I showed that that item had errors in it. Those errors are still there. That seems to me to be an extraordinary thing to occur after a committee inquiry. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —The time for consideration of committee reports has expired. Consideration resumed. (Quorum formed) The CHAIRMAN —The Committee was considering clause 71 to which Opposition amendment No. (6) had been moved but not resolved. Amendment negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 72 to 75-by leave-taken together. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.38) —by leave-I move: (57) Page 27, clause 73, at the end of the clause, add the following sub-clause : '(2) The reference in sub-section (1) to the supply of services includes a reference to the provision of credit.'. (58) Page 28, clause 75, after sub-clause (1), insert the following sub-clause: '(1A) In relation to a contract of general insurance, if the state of health of the insured was the reason, or one of the reasons, that the insurer did not accept the offer, cancelled the contract, did not renew the insurance cover or offered insurance cover on less advantageous terms, as the case may be, the insurer may require the insured to inform the insurer in writing of the name of a legally qualified medical practitioner to whom the statement may be given on behalf of the insured and, where the statement is given to the medical practitioner so nominated, the insurer shall be taken to have complied with sub- section (1) in relation to the request.'. Amendments agreed to. Clauses, as amended, agreed to. Clause 76 (Contribution between insurers). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.40) —I believe an uncontroversial amendment to clause 76 is No. 59 on the Governments list of amendments. I move: (59) Page 29, lines 38 to 40, and page 30, lines 1 to 4, clause 76, leave out sub-clause (7), insert the following sub-clause: '(7) For the purpose of ascertaining the amount that is to be attributable to an insurer under sub-section (3), there shall be taken into account the liability, in respect of the loss, of an insurer (in this sub-section referred to as the 'Government insurer') under a contract entered into in the course of State insurance or Northern Territory insurance but sub-section (3) does not- (a) entitle the Government insurer to recover contribution; or (b) render the Government insurer liable to pay contribution.'. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.41) —The Opposition believes that the proposition put forward in clause 76 is unnecessary and undesirable. There has been a massive amount of common law over a considerable period relative to the question of the contribution on the settlement of claims. With a bit of touching up, it is far better to stand by the principles that have been established than to go into a new and artificial basis. If we can arrange that the major insurers settle and claim from other insurers where they share the risk, it will enable the insured to be paid at a primary level. However, to go through some artificial scheme of setting up a basis of settlement is totally unnecessary. If we stand by the old contribution clause, which is well understood as an insurance term, everybody will know exactly where he stands. I do not think it is contrary to what the Government has in mind. In fact, it seems to fit in slightly better than what it has in mind. It would certainly simplify the matter . I see no reason for making something difficult when we could do it in this way . Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(6.42) —The Australian Democrats agree with the Opposition on this matter. We feel that it is unnecessarily complicating to introduce the very complex system which is contained in the Government's proposal. We much prefer the simpler approach which the Opposition' s amendment will have applied to this aspect. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.43) —I am not in a position in which I can agree to the Opposition's amendment, but, particularly in the light of what Senator Jack Evans has just said, I do not think I would be willing to die in a ditch for it. The reality is that the Government prefers the specific formula that was devised and recommended by the Law Reform Commission but it does acknowledge that the industry has indicated no great problem so far as contribution among its members is concerned and does not want any particular regulation of those arrangements so far as its own interests are concerned. What the Opposition's proposed amendment does is restate the existing law so far as the insured's position is concerned whereby the insured can claim the amount of the loss from any insurer he chooses, leaving the question of contribution to the insurers to sort out among themselves. As I have said, the Government would prefer the original clause, as amended, but it acknowledges that this amendment does not do any great damage to the concept of the Insurance Contracts Bill as the Government has advanced it and will bear, with such fortitude as it can, being rolled on this clause. Amendment negatived. Motion (by Senator Archer) agreed to: (7) Pages 29 and 30, clause 76, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: '76. When 2 or more insurers are liable under separate contracts of general insurance to the same insured in respect of the same loss the insured shall be entitled immediately to recover the loss from any 1 or more of those insurers as is necessary to fully satisfy the loss without prejudice to the rights of that insurer or those insurers to contribution from the other insurers liable in respect of the same loss.'. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 77 agreed to. Clause 78 (Regulations). Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(6.45) —I move: (8) Page 30, Clause 78, after paragraph (1) (b), insert the following new paragraph: '(c) amending the time limits provided for in sections 40, 58 and 69.'. The amendment is self-explanatory. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.45) —I am glad to say that this debate can now conclude on a note of genuine amicability because the Government has no difficulty at all with this amendment. It would give a degree of flexibility should experience show that the time limits need some adjustment. Although I have no formal authority from Caucus or anybody else to agree with the amendment, I readily acknowledge its utility and desirability and express no opposition to it. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.47) —Recently I have found it fairly difficult to ask a question in this place. That is not for any reason other than that Ministers in replying to questions often take a lot longer than they really should. A lot of the things they say in reply to questions, although very informative, are more like ministerial statements than answers to questions. I think it is time, particularly now that we have fewer sitting days per month than we used to have, that we lengthened Question Time to perhaps one and a half or two hours a day, as it used to be when I first became a senator. It was suggested to me that if the Opposition did not get an opportunity to ask a certain number of questions the Opposition should spend the rest of the day calling quorums. That is not a bad idea and it might smarten up some Ministers as well. The alternative is to speak in the adjournment debate at length and arrange to speak at length. Everybody will be pleased to hear that I am not going to speak at length. I want to bring to the notice of the Senate-it was going to be done by way of a question earlier today-an article in the Age yesterday unfortunately headed 'Fraserism gets the boot'. It was written by Michael Barnard and deals with the South African situation. For the benefit of the Senate, I will read some of the article now. In part, it states: That Mr Fraser could in the first place have got away with an aggressive policy stance not, one must now assume, shared by many of his coalition colleagues-- I can assure honourable senators it was not shared by a lot of his coalition colleagues even when he was Prime Minister-- is in itself a remarkable reflection of the ex-PM's power of leadership. The facts never justified Mr Fraser's more extreme attitudes towards the South African Government, any more than they could justify the failure of successive Australian Governments to acknowledge the realities of post-colonial black Africa, namely that in the past 25 years of economic ineptitude more than 70 leaders in 29 black States have been deposed by assassination, purges or coups; that 17 are single-party States and another 17 under military rule; and that in one black State after another independence has been followed by a steady decrease in per capita food production deterioration of essential services and, in more than a few instances, a lapse into bloody tribalism that makes former colonial abuse appear positively benign. What the coalition now appears prepared to do is to bring Australia back into line with the US and South Africa's more-tempered West European critics by acknowledging and encouraging the positive signs in South Africa's inevitably painful evolution. Few people, indeed, few white South Africans, deny that discriminations continue and that some of them, evaluated outside the peculiar context of the African continent, are harsh. This, however, does not and cannot erase a mounting list of plusses from the board: externally, Pretoria's peace initiatives with its neighbors and its long history of life-sustaining exports to impoverished black States; internally, constitutional change that brings Indians and Coloreds into central Government, an ever-widening multiracial involvement in sport, industry and the like, and a whole range of promising pointers which, sadly, rarely seem to get reported in the Western media. For instance, who would know that, while an overall disparity still operates in favour of whites, the average wage of blacks employed outside agriculture and domestic service rose by 68.5 per cent over the years 1970-80, compared with 2.5 per cent for whites, and that in the skilled and semi-skilled categories the white-black earning ratio is now below 2 to 1? Or that the percentage of whites who hold clerical, sales, artisan and supervisory jobs has decreased from 82 per cent in 1965 to 66 per cent in 1981, while the other population groups have more than doubled their participation (eg . black clerical workers, 9 per cent in 1965, up to 18 per cent by 1981)? Or that the proportion of black students at the 'white'' University of Cape Town has risen from 5.9 per cent in 1974 to 13.8 per cent last year? These are random illustrations. Such examples abound. Individually, it is easy to ignore or poke fun at them. Collectively, they represent not only a shift in attitudes that would have been unthinkable in South Africa even 20 years ago, but a commitment on the part of the Botha Government which, given all the circumstances, is nothing short of courageous. For those wishing to exert positive influence from overseas it is far better, as the Federal Opposition seems to be discovering-- Here I interpose that many of us within the Federal Opposition, when it was in government, felt that it was much better to try to encourage those leading South Africa by the carrot approach rather than the stick approach. The article continued: . . . to opt for a policy of dialogue and encouragement than for one of total ostracism while dealing normally with incomparably greater human rights offenders. The fact that we fly to Zimbabwe on Qantas aircraft and do not fly to South Africa is to me an anomaly which I believe we should fix up as soon as possible. Senator Kilgariff —It is strange. Senator TOWNLEY —It really is remarkably strange that we do not fly that very lucrative route, particularly when we trade in so many ways. There is so much trade between Western Australia and South Africa. Also people in other States, trade increasingly with people on the South African continent. I now come to that part of the article to which I really want to draw the attention of the Senate. It states: The Hawke Government is boxing itself into a most extreme position over South Africa. Not only has it given its blessing to the establishment in Australia of an office for the black terrorist organisation, the African National Congress and SWAPO, but now appears actively to be backing the raising of cash for these bodies through the 'African Liberation Trust Fund'. A letter circulating among trade unions and signed by Dr Blewett, Minister for Health,-- He is not a medical doctor, of course. Senator Ryan —A real doctor. Senator Robert Ray —The real doctors of course are doctors of philosophy. Senator TOWNLEY —Okay, but Dr Blewett is not a doctor in the medical sense, which is what a lot of people still seem to think he is. He may be a doctor of philosophy. I have met a lot of doctors of philosophy who, I can tell the honourable senator, I have not been very impressed with. Dr Blewett is one, but I have not met him recently, thank goodness. The article continued: . . . Mr Scott, Federal Member for Hindmarsh, and Mr Crafter, SA Minister of Community Welfare, notes Federal approval for the ANC-SWAPO office and goes on: ''It remains for us to provide the support that will sustain this office and make it effective''. The letter asks unions to give ''very full consideration to the appeal for financial support for the African Liberation Trust Fund'' because ''with the struggle in southern Africa moving towards a climax our support can help reduce the length and intensity of the conflict''. Yet the Government has dared to attack the Opposition in regard to South Africa. It seems remarkable to me that now in this country we have a Government approving, backing and supporting terrorist organisations while at the same time denying entry into Australia of South African members of parliament who wanted to come here to try to inform people in this country. Even when those South African members of parliament were invited by other members of parliament here, they were not allowed to come. It seems to me that the Hawke socialist Government is taking the first steps- Senator Robert Ray —It is usually called the Hawke socialist republican Government. Senator TOWNLEY —I will come to that in a speech tomorrow. I will get on to that matter then. The Hawke Government is on the first step of denying people the travel they want to take. I can foresee the time when it will be against the rules of Mr Hawke and his socialists to stop members of parliament of this country who might want to go to South Africa. As far as I know, not one Minister of either the Labor Government or the Liberal Party when it was in government has been to South Africa to look at the situation at first hand. As the newspaper article said, the Government has boxed itself into the most extreme situation that I have seen during my period in parliament in regard to foreign affairs. Why a government will approve, support and back terrorist organisations , which quite openly are prepared to use violence and murder if necessary to gain their ends, I do not know. I believe it is something that this country should view very seriously. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(7.00) —The matter I raise again tonight concerns the Department of Foreign Affairs. Concerning the Henderson and Ryan resignations yesterday, I will confine myself to observing that, like the Almighty, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) moves in wondrous ways. In my speech to the Senate on 8 March, concerning Mr J. E. Ryan, ex-head of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, I made certain allegations concerning the peculiar handling of that matter by Mr Hayden and the Department of Foreign Affairs. That evening Mr Hayden made a short, sharp and, in my view, somewhat misleading response to my speech. It is my intention to make a full reply to the Minister next month after I have completed a number of consultations on the matter. I note that Mr Ryan had been on special duties in the Department of Foreign Affairs on the rather princely salary of $60,471 per year. In the meantime, I hope that honourable senators will have carefully noted the words of the Acting Chief Magistrate of the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Kevin Dobson, who on 16 March, on dismissing the first Crimes Act charge against Mr Don Witheford, the suspended Foreign Affairs officer, opined that Mr Witheford's prosecution had been 'conceived in prejudice and born in bias on the part of some officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs'. These officers are the very people against whose corruption I have been campaigning for more than two years. I trust that those honourable senators who have taken little or no interest in what Mr Hayden has termed my campaign, or who, worse still, have criticised me and even praised those who are the subject of my allegations, will pause and take a very careful look at themselves. I welcome the sympathetic interest displayed in this issue by a number of parliamentarians, including the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, and Senator Tate, who pursued these issues with Mr Henderson in Estimates Committee E last Thursday. Let me make it abundantly clear. The abortive misuse of the criminal justice system, at a cost to the taxpayer of tens of thousands of dollars, with the aim of destroying Mr Witheford, was basically motivated by Mr Peter Henderson's burning desire to root out one of my main contacts inside what he regards as his personal fiefdom. Mr Witheford remains locked out of his job and is supported by Public Service unions and a growing community campaign, both in Canberra and elsewhere. In my view, time has come for Ministers to blow the whistle on this disgraceful episode. I hope that, seven weeks after Mr Dobson's courageous and perceptive judgment, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Temby, will give the remaining charges the treatment the community generally believes they deserve. On 8 March, I told honourable senators that Mr Ivor Bowden, the former Ambassador in Tehran about whom I have spoken on many occasions, was to be forced to repay some of the costs of moving a piano and furniture half way round the world in 1978 at taxpayers' expense. This admittedly limited progress constitutes the first occasion that Mr Bowden has been forced to repay since he was detected in 1960 misusing government funds on a nanny's fare from the United Kingdom to Australia. This faint light at the end of the tunnel was due basically to the efforts of Mr Witheford and Mr Karl Henne who, at considerable personal cost, informed the former Foreign Minister, Mr Street, of an earlier attempt by Mr Bowden to dodge payment, which was foiled by an honest junior officer in Canberra, and his subsequent successful attempt to ship the furniture without cost to himself. I disagree with the view adopted by the Ombudsman and the police, who did not even contact Mr Henne or Mr Witheford, that there is no evidence that Mr Bowden and other Tehran Embassy officials behaved criminally in this matter. I ask: Does any honourable senator believe that payment would have finally been demanded had I not interested myself in the matter? I remain puzzled about the question of Mr Bowden's loss of silverware in 1978. My suspicions were first aroused when I was informed that references to Mr Bowden's rank and integrity was the response thrown at the disgruntled businessmen involved. I doubt that honourable senators need to be reminded by me of the range of questionable moneymaking measures Mr Bowden employed during his four years at the helm of the Tehran Embassy; nor will they have forgotten the widely held view that the subsequent Department of Finance, Australian Federal Police and other enquiries were, to put it crudely, to a greater or lesser degree cover-up jobs masterminded by Mr Peter Henderson, who in my opinion could teach Sir Humphrey Appleby a thing or two. I forbear from drawing any comparison between Mr Hayden and the Hon. James Hacker. I invite any doubting Thomases to consider carefully Acting Chief Magistrate Dobson's savage comments on the senior Foreign Affairs management and their witnesses, against whom there have been suggestions of perjury. I would be pleased to provide the full transcript to any honourable senator who cares to peruse it. I ask: Could anyone now seriously challenge my belief that the prejudice and bias, so clearly depicted by His Worship on 16 March, have been typical of the present ruling clique in Foreign Affairs for many years. I return to the matter concerning Mr Bowden. Some months ago I made it clear that I believed Mr Bowden, like a certain Ambassador to Germany, should not be given another ambassadorial assignment. I was, therefore, most disturbed at the announcement by Mr Hayden on 18 March, two days after Mr Dobson's damning judgment, that Mr Bowden, after six years in Canberra, was to be posted as Ambassador to Pakistan, a not inconsiderable country in size and importance. I have recieved one report that Mr Bowden has already left Australia. I am genuinely surprised that the Government of Pakistan, which maintains an Embassy in Canberra, has agreed to accept Mr Bowden. To that end I have sent a message to the President of Pakistan, General Zia, informing him of Mr Bowden's reputation and some of his activities, and inviting his Government to reconsider whether Mr Bowden's appointment should be allowed to proceed. Honourable senators will recall that there is a precedent for action of this sort; that is, Senator Walsh's praiseworthy but fruitless attempt to prevent Sir Victor Garland 's appointment to London. To save the time of the Senate I ask that my message to the President of Pakistan be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The message read as follows- Canberra 9 May 1984 His Excellency General Muhammad Zia Vi Hag, CMLA Secretariat, Rawapindi, Pakistan Your Excellency, I am a Government Senator, representing the State of Victoria and amongst other responsibilities, I serve as Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the Australian Senate. I write to draw your attention to deep concern felt in the Australian Parliament, the Public Service and the wider community, at the assignment of Mr Ivor Gordon Bowden as Australian Ambassador to your country. The relations between Australia and Pakistan are cordial, important and of long standing. Many distinguished figures have contributed to these relations as diplomatic representatives in your capital or in ours. Mr Bowden has been the subject of a range of serious allegations involving dishonesty since as long ago as 1960. More recently, and commencing in 1982, I have ventilated a number of instances of financial misconduct by Mr Bowden, especially during the period of 1974 to 1978 when he served as Australian Ambassador in Tehran. There has been, and is still continuing to be, an unprincipled campaign by Mr Bowden's supporters in the Department of Foreign Affairs and elsewhere, to cover up his misdeeds. This has included prejudiced and biassed legal and other action against Foreign Affairs officers courageous enough to tell the truth about Mr Bowden's activities. I would have expected that your Embassy in Canberra would have kept your Government informed of some dozen speeches in Parliament and hundreds of questions commencing in February 1982, concerning high level corruption involving Mr Bowden and his colleagues. It concerns me deeply that Mr Bowden's appointment as Ambassador to Pakistan is calculated to lock in Her Majesty the Queen and your Excellency, to the incredible fiction that Mr Bowden has been cleared of all the various allegations of financial misconduct against him and that he is therefore a suitable person to be appointed to an important diplomatic post. I am reliably advised that Mr Bowden's presence will in any event, be required in Australia later this year for further legal proceedings connected with his financial misconduct. It will be a matter for deep concern in both our countries were Mr Bowden's assignment in Islamabad to serve as an excuse for him to avoid legal proceedings in Australia. I request Your Excellency to carefully consider the ramifications of this matter in the light of the importance of the relations between Pakistan and Australia. I stand ready to provide any assistance that you may need in this regard. Senator PRIMMER —I handed over my message to His Excellency the Ambassador of Pakistan at 3 o'clock this afternoon for transmission to the President of that country. Let me repeat that I regard Mr Bowden as a singularly unsuitable Ambassador to anywhere, and I say that not just in my capacity as an Australian taxpayer. That Mr Bowden has been able not only to survive but also to prosper in the diplomatic service in my view exemplifies the Acting Chief Magistrate's strong opinions about those who have been running the Department of Foreign Affairs in recent years and particularly since 1976. I invite any honourable senator who is inclined to doubt this to look again at the scores of questions on the issue which have been mouldering on the Notice Paper for the last seven months. The obvious and only reason for this is that the questions, if answered honestly, could reveal a range of malpractice by senior officials that would result in a public outcry for urgent action. Let me say that I will not be giving up my efforts to focus attention on the disgraceful state of affairs in Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, to the extent that I am able, I will be assisting any honest citizens with information to offer to be heard. The most recent instance of such a person was Ms Carmel van Dartel. She recently spoke out, despite frenzied efforts to muzzle her by people who should know better. Her allegations have been swept under the carpet in the usual manner. Lest there be any doubt about the shamelessness of the people running the Department at this time, let me conclude with a recent example concerning Sir Nicholas Parkinson, the former head of the Department, about whose peculiar and lucrative retirement I have raised many questions and received precious few answers. I share the belief of my informants and people in the Department that, with Mr Henderson's assistance, Sir Nicholas has, or will in due course, have mulcted the taxpayer to the extent of at least $250,000. The Department's reaction to my efforts has been to omit Sir Nicholas's curriculum vitae from the latest edition of a departmental publication entitled 'Statement of Service', which hitherto has included all serving, retired and deceased staff . Therefore, so far as the Department is concerned, Sir Nicholas has ceased to exist. I ask: Is this the action of people who have nothing to hide? Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(7.10) —I rise to address the Senate tonight in connection with the death of Arnold Ap, a man who was in the custody of the Indonesian Government and who has been shot and is now reported as being dead. Mr Ap, the curator of Cendrawasih University Museum at Abepura, was detained with four others in November last year. He was one of a number of people who were concerned with the Melanesian position in Irian Jaya. I will read the report which appeared in the Canberra Times yesterday and which spoke of the death of the detained academic and stated that it was confirmed. The report states: Mr Arnold Ap, an Irian Jayan academic detained last year for alleged anti- Indonesian activities, had been shot dead after escaping from jail, it was confirmed today. This is a report from Jakarta. The report continues: Reliable informants who witnessed his funeral said it was not clear who had killed him or why. They spoke by telephone from the Irian Jayan capital, Jayapura, but they declined to be named, for security reasons. Mr Ap, 38, had been dead from gunshot wounds in Jayapura morgue about April 21, shortly after reportedly escaping from jail, where he had been detained without charges for five months. He was buried at his native Abepura just west of Jayapura, on April 29. Mr Eduard Mofu, 30, a student who had been detained at Abepura on March 9 for alleged OPM activities- that is, the Free West Papua Movement- had also been found dead, but the circumstances were vague. Jayapura police declined to comment late last week when unconfirmed reports of Mr Ap's death reached diplomats in Jakarta and Port Moresby. I am very concerned by this. I am very concerned at what action the Australian Government may or may not have taken about this matter. I point out to the Senate that we have seen a period in Irian Jaya where there is great concern by the local Melanesian people at the intended migration of a great number of Indonesians into the territory from the over-crowded island of Jave. It is obviously the desire of the Indonesian Government to bring something like one million or one and a half million people into this part of the country, giving them lands, which, of course will deprive the local inhabitants of their lands. This has caused a great deal of concern. We know that there is trouble, particularly in the border area with Papua New Guinea. Robin Osborne, a reporter and one who is very well informed on this situation, in a broadcast on 18 September 1983 dealing with the position in Irian Jaya, gave a description of the extent to which this migration is taking place. He said: The people arrive at either Jayapura in the north, or at Merauke in the south in large Hercules transport aircraft. And you stand there at the airport and watch them being unloaded and it's the usual sort of Asian large scale migration thing where everybody gets off with a huge number of cardboard boxes all tied up with string and all the rest of it and they are obviously not very rich people, and they stand out fairly significantly by comparison to the taller dark-skinned people of Irian Jaya and then they are moved by trucks or other forms of transport to the camps. Around this whole question of the death of Arnold Ap, an academic, is this real problem with regard to the people who are being dispossessed in that area. As a result of reading reports like this I asked this question in the Senate on 4 April this year of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to recent articles by Mr Robin Osborne relating to political arrests by the Indonesian Government in the province of Irian Jaya and the imprisonment of Melanesian suspects without formal charges or prompt trials. In the light of an answer given by the Minister in response to my question without notice on 13 September 1983 that the Government 'will keep Parliament advised as appropriate' on human rights abuses of the Melanesian population in Irian Jaya, I ask the Minister: Firstly, what information has the Government received from its various diplomatic missions in respect to the arrest two months ago of 30 alleged supporters of the Melanesian underground who included the curator of the Condrawasih University's anthropology museum, Mr Arnold Ap? Secondly, will the Australian Government use its good offices with the Indonesian Government to make inquiries about the safety of Mr Ap and his co-detainees and to make every possible effort to ensure that they all receive proper trials or are released without delay? On that occasion, in answer to the question, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) who represents the Foreign Minister in this place, said: Senator Missen's question is an important one. I do not have a detailed briefing on these matters at the moment. I will draw the matter to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and get an answer for him as soon as possible. Until this afternoon I had not received any answer, no indication of what the Department of Foreign Affairs has been doing to take up this matter. I have been told indirectly by a member of that Department that it has made some inquiries of the Indonesian authorities. But it was only after pressure by me that I received, late this afternoon, an answer to that question. In fairness to the Foreign Minister I will read that into the record. The Foreign Minister said, in answer to my question: Information available to the Government is that Mr Ap and about 20 other persons were arrested in Jayapura late in November 1983 for alleged involvement with the Free West Papua Movement (OPM). Since all the detainees are Indonesian citizens, the Australian Government has no consular standing in the matter. It is reported that the 20 are still in detention. Firm information on the whereabouts of Mr Ap is not available but we are continuing to pursue our enquiries. Enquiries were made about Mr Ap for example during the recent visit to Irian Jaya by our Ambassador in Jakarta. We are aware of press reports that Mr Ap has been killed, but these reports have yet to be confirmed. It may be that those reports have not been confirmed. But I am really concerned at the failure of the Government to treat this matter with urgency and seriousness. I have not got an answer, even at this stage, and I do not expect tonight to get any answer from the Government as to what it knows and what it has done. It seems to me that we have a situation where I cannot draw conclusions as to the way in which Mr Ap, the curator of this museum, was shot, was arrested and never brought to trial and had no charges made against him. We know of many difficult situations of unlawful killings taking place in parts of Indonesia. But I would have expected that the Government would have raised that question strongly with our Ambassador in Jakarta and with the Indonesian authorities to find out why Mr Ap was there, why he was not being tried, why no charges were being made and what was going to happen to him. If the spotlight of public attention in this obvious breach of human rights had been drawn to the attention of the Indonesian Government I believe there might have been some chance that this man might not have been killed in the circumstances in which he appears to have been killed. We know that, because of the concern of many of the Melanesian people in that area, as reported in today' s news, the OPM group were tonight trying to get a petition to Pope John Paul II saying that refugees would face harsh punishment if Papua New Guinea sends them back to the Indonesian province. That is the position of people who have gone over the border and are threatened with return to the Government of Indonesia. I am extremely concerned, first, at the inability of the Government to answer this question before now. In fact, in the answer which I received only this afternoon, and which has now been included in Hansard, there is no indication of what our Australian Government has been doing, what inquiries it has made or whether it has had any answers in the last few weeks about Mr Ap and his co- detainees. I believe it is a serious concern that we appear to have been negligent in regard to our pressure for human rights in that country. I draw this matter to the attention of the Senate, not in any party political way or anything of that sort, but because I am concerned. I am concerned not only in my ordinary capacity but also as Chairman of the parliamentary group of Amnesty International. This obviously is a breach of normal human rights. I want to know what the Australian Government has done and what it is doing now to try to ensure that, if Mr Ap is dead, his co-detainees will be treated in a normal, civilised way. I hope that the Government will quickly respond to that matter and quickly go on with any representations it is making to the Indonesian Government. We are concerned, as people in this country, to see these things happening. We believe that they should be brought to the notice of world opinion . Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(7.20) —Tonight I want to take up the issue of creating more employment and income opportunities, especially in my home State of South Australia but, generally speaking, in Australia as a whole. It is very important at this stage to look at opportunities to create employment and incomes in view of high unemployment and the depressed circumstances in the economy at present. When we think of creating new industries it seems a daunting prospect. But often we do not realise that we already have in existence excellent opportunities on which to capitalise. In Australia we could supply more services rather than rely on exports which has been a traditional way of earning revenue overseas. It is very important to note that the services area is a very high income area. In particular I want to talk about developing Adelaide as a medical research and treatment centre for the south-west Pacific region. In doing so I certainly welcome statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on their recent visits abroad when they referred to the ability of Australia to supply high standard medical and health services to residents of countries in our region. I believe that Adelaide's potential to be come a medical research and treatment centre could become a reality if the Federal and South Australian governments could capitalise on the skills and excellent research base already existing in Adelaide and support and encourage the further development of that base. One way we could do this would be to provide more information about our medical skills and resources to those working in the field in other countries. There is a need, for example, to make professionals overseas more aware of the services in Australia in the medical and health area. It still seems that many residents of South East Asian countries for example, travel to Europe and North America for treatment when many of the skills needed are available closer at hand in Australia and are much more accessible. The city of Lyons in France has proved what can be done by focusing economic development on medical research and development. Lyons has proved that medical research is a high income area and a potential growth industry. It is particularly interesting that following the development of research institutes in and around Lyons there have been many spin-offs for the city, including the subsequent location there of many major pharmaceutical companies. As a result of those developments, employment has been generated in the city and high incomes are being earned through pioneering these new fields. Houston, in the American State of Texas, is another city which has developed significantly its growth in the provision of these specialist types of medical service I have been talking about. Adelaide has a history of medical and health achievement going back over a century. The cranio-facial unit which works between the Adelaide Children's Hospital and the Royal Adelaide Hospital is the world class unit in this field. I was very impressed by my visit recently to the cranio-facial unit. It has a major reliance on computer technology and the needs of the institute are stimulating computer advances. It is very interesting that to that unit at the Children's Hospital and the Royal Adelaide Hospital citizens from the general Pacific region are now coming for treatment because, frankly, they get the best treatment in the world for those types of disease. In the field of forensic medicine, a truly world class service is now being established in Adelaide. It is so good, I believe, that a retainer is being paid by the United Kingdom police for the services which are available there. The Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science is conducting important research work including research into bone diseases, diets, leukaemia and particularly bone marrow transplants. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Human Nutrition, which is located in Adelaide at two sites, one at the University of Adelaide and one in the southern suburbs, is doing the major work in Australia into the incidence of particular types of cancer and particularly links between cancer and diet, including alcoholic drinks. It is also doing the major work in the Southern Hemisphere into zinc deficiencies in the population and the implications of those for the human physical condition. They are a few of the major research advances and projects which are occurring in the various institutes in and around Adelaide. At Adelaide University the very important work on stomach diseases, which I have referred to in the Parliament before, has major potential. A particular species of frog has the ability to turn off acid secretion in its stomach. It has a tremendous potential for the cure of stomach ulcers. It is very important to note that Adelaide has the largest and most advanced sports medicine clinic in Australia at the Hindmarsh Community Hospital. People are coming from all over Australia for the treatment of sports related injuries which are, unfortunately, on the increase in this country-one of the side effects of the leisure boom. Several major drug manufacturing companies based in Adelaide round off and complete this large medical and health inventory in that city. It is noteworthy that F. H. Faulding and Co. Ltd in the last five years has developed a world class antibiotic, ERYC, which is now showing its effectiveness against a number of diseases. Progress is now occurring at Technology Park. The Federal Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) recently opened the first major building in that park. I think we can start to put these various things together . I am hopeful that out of Technology Park will come some important innovations in micro-electronics and the development of new medical products. I believe that policies and initiatives can be developed to support Adelaide becoming a medical research centre. What is needed now is a plan to draw it all together. That can occur only as a result of joint efforts by the State and Commonwealth governments. I think the general lesson is there to be learned. Australia as a whole should focus more on supplying services and skills to other countries in the second half of the 1980s. That is the way we can create employment in areas with very large potential growth and very high per capita incomes. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(7.29) —I want to raise a subject shortly that I hoped to raise in Question Time but I failed to catch the eye of the President. Before doing so I will comment on what Senator Maguire said. I believe he is quite right in making his suggestion. Adelaide would be well placed to provide the sorts of services that he envisages. I attended the launching of the new antibiotic by F. H. Faulding and Co. Ltd some time ago and I can vouch for the fact that that company has a very successful operation. It is exporting drugs to the benefit of Australia, particularly South Australia. I raise a matter now that has irked members of the Opposition, including me, for some time. It concerns the refusal of the Government to issue visas to enable two South Africans-one an elected member of parliament, Mr Durr, and another who is an Indian and an elected representative of the President's Council-to come to Australia to address closed seminars on current events in southern Africa which, I believe, are of great significance to people in Australia. Mr Deputy President, you will recall that on 5 March, Senator Townley , Senator Crichton-Browne, Senator Hill and I attacked the Government for what we regarded to be an unusually unfair and undemocratic act. Following that debate, I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and pointed out our grave concern over the recent decision that had been made to refuse visas to those two elected representatives to come to Australia. In a letter which was signed by a dozen or so of my colleagues we pointed out that it was surprising that such action be taken because it was taken in view of the fact that representatives of the African National Congress and the South West African People's Organisation were allowed to enter Australia last year and received significant Press coverage at public meetings, putting their views on the affairs of South Africa at the time when the Prime Minister approved the establishment of two information offices for SWAPO and ANC in Australia. The Government stated: Information activities by such offices were legitimate and accorded with the operation of a free democratic society. In the interests of time, I seek leave for that letter to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 6 March 1984 The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 Dear Prime Minister, We want to express our grave concern over the recent decision of your Government to refuse visas for two elected representatives from South Africa to visit Australia to address seminars concerning current political events in their country. It is surprising that such an action be taken in view of the fact that representatives of ANC and SWAPO were allowed to enter Australia last year and received significant press coverage at public meetings putting their views on the affairs of South Africa at the time when you approved the establishment of two information offices for SWAPO and ANC in Australia, the Government stated: ' Information activities by such offices were legitimate and accorded with the operation of a free democratic society.' In view of the fact that these self-professed terrorist organisations are financially supported by the USSR we find it impossible to reconcile the action taken by your Government to prevent moderate elected South African representatives from putting their views to interested people in Australia. The South Africans have been deliberately low-key in organising these seminars which, although open to the press, are not to receive publicity through the media. In the spirit of consensus and democratic fairness and recognising that Gallup polls throughout Australia indicate massive public support for strengthening sporting, trade and cultural ties with South Africa, we request you to give immediate attention to issuing visas to Mr Kent Durr, MP and Mr Marmour Rajab to enter Australia. Yours faithfully, Senator JESSOP —In his reply, Mr Hawke thanked us for the letter, noted our views and made this inaccurate comment: I would only comment in connection with your statement that the seminars were not to receive publicity through the media that they were in fact reported in a provocative manner in the National Times of 17 to 23 February. I would also draw your attention to a report in the Age of 6 March that the South African Government was considering requesting visas for other politicians in order to test the resolve of the Government. That was an inaccurate statement because it implied that the South African Embassy was responsible for the provocative report in the National Times and a report in the Age of 6 March. I made inquiries about this and discovered that the journalist who wrote the article had approached the Embassy with all the facts concerning the visa applications by Messrs Durr and Rajab before any invitations had been distributed. In fact, nothing had been done. At that time only the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs were aware of the applications and details of the proposed closed seminars following discussions with an Embassy official delegated to clarify the purpose of the exercise with the Department. So it is obvious to me that that leak to the Press came from one or other of those two departments that I mentioned. I seek leave to incorporate the full text of my letter about that in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 30 March 1984 The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, AC, MP Prime Minister Parliament House Canberra. A.C.T. 2600. My dear Prime Minister, I have received your letter of 22 March in reply to the request by my colleagues and me for you to issue visas to enable a South African M.P. Mr Durr, and a prominent Moslem Community leader Mr Rajab, who is a member of the President's Council to visit Australia to address Closed Seminars not to be publicised through the media. As your letter implied that the South African Embassy was responsible for '' provocative'' reports in the N.T. of 17-23 February and ''a report in the Age of 6th March'', I contacted the Embassy to ascertain the origin of these statements . I was informed that the journalist concerned had approached the Embassy with all the facts concerning the visa applications by Messrs Durr and Rajab before any invitations had been distributed. At that time only the Department of Foreign Affairs was aware of these applications and details of the proposed Closed Seminars following discussions with an Embassy official delegated to clarify the purpose of the exercise with the Department. The Embassy vehemently denied any responsibility for this ''leak '' to the Press and I was subsequently informed that this information to the journalist of the National Times could only have been provided by the Australian Commonwealth Departments concerned. Your reference to ''the South African Government was considering requesting visas for other politicians'' is inaccurate. ''The Age'' report (copy attached) reads: ''The South African Government is considering more visa applications''. In addition, I am informed that the Embassy was dissatisfied with the reporter's inaccurate insinuation that the South African Government wished to ''test the resolve'' of the Australian Government. On 6 March during the course of discussions-at the highest possible level- relating to alternative speakers, the Embassy clarified this particular report with the Department of Foreign Affairs. In fact, it was the media and not the Department of Foreign Affairs which advised the South African Embassy of the ultimate refusal of the visas. My colleagues and I are still firm in the view that visas should be issued to these gentlemen, and reiterate our request that you reconsider the matter urgently. Yours sincerely, DON JESSOP Senator for South Australia Senator JESSOP —Following the rejection of our request for the Government to issue unconditional visas for these people to come to Australia, I composed a letter to send to the South African Ambassador. It was signed by 52 members of the Opposition. Senator Kilgariff —Most of them. Senator JESSOP —Most of them; that is right. In all fairness and in the spirit of democracy that we enjoy in Australia most of the others would have signed it as well. The text of the letter is as follows: We, the undersigned members of the Australian Parliament, have much pleasure in extending through you an invitation to Mr Durr MP and Mr Rajab, a member of the President's Council, to visit Australia for the purpose of consultation with us on recent developments in southern Africa. We would also welcome a representative of the Progressive Party, the official Opposition, to join in these discussions. Would you also convey to Chief Buthelezi the interest we would have in a future visit by him to Australia. It would be helpful if we could have an early indication from you that this invitation could be accepted, notwithstanding the disappointment which met the previous intentions of Messrs Durr and Rajab to visit this country. That was an invitation from a significant number of members of the Parliament, representing many people throughout the community. A majority of over 70 per cent in two or three gallup polls that have been carried out, believe that our attitude with respect, for example, to sport with South Africa ought to be changed. That letter was received by the Ambassador and he certainly indicated that the people concerned would have some pleasure in receiving it and believed that they would accept. Following that letter, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) wrote to the Prime Minister, referred to our invitation and asked him to issue visas for the purpose that we required. I seek leave to incorporate the text of that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 5 April 1984 Dear Prime Minister, I refer to correspondence between you and Senator Jessop concerning your Government's refusal to issue visas to enable a South African MP, Mr Durr, and a prominent Moslem Community leader, Mr Rajab, a member of the President's Council , to visit Australia. Senator Jessop and I have discussed this matter with a number of our colleagues and in addition to ourselves 50 other members of the Opposition have extended an invitation through the South African Embassy to Messrs Durr and Rajab to visit Australia for the purpose of meeting with interested Australian Parliamentarians to discuss recent developments in Southern Africa. We have also requested that a member of the official Opposition (PFP) accompany them. I write not only to advise you of the invitation that we have issued but to request that you pay proper regard to our open liberal society and democratic values to ensure that visas are issued by your Government. I have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West. Yours sincerely, ANDREW PEACOCK (Andrew Peacock) The Hon R J L Hawke, AC, MP Prime Minister Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 CC: Senator Jessop Senator JESSOP —The next part of the scenario was a letter from the Prime Minister rejecting that request from the Leader of the Opposition. He was, I thought, quite bold and impertinent when he said: If you are able to give me a written assurance that the proposed presence in Australia of the South African politicians, as the Opposition's guests will not be exploited by them for the purpose of promoting apartheid, the Government will be prepared to approve the applications for visas which may result from your request. I seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- The Honourable A. S. Peacock, MP Leader of the Opposition Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Mr Peacock Thank you for your letter of 5 April 1984 in which you advised me of the intention of the Opposition to invite to Australia three South African politicians and requested the Government to issue visas to them. I am somewhat surprised at the importance attached to giving aid and comfort to South Africa in the Opposition's foreign policy, as evidenced by this invitation on behalf of yourself and a section of your Opposition colleagues, but acknowledge that this is your own affair. I now understand a little more clearly the report in the Capetown Argus of 29 February, attributed to the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Mr Mackellar, that the Coalition Parties proposed to develop a more accommodating policy towards South Africa. The Government takes the view that South Africans holding official positions will not be permitted entry to Australia if the principal purpose of their visit is to promote apartheid doctrine or policies. This follows from the peculiarly odious character of the apartheid doctrine practised by the South African Government. It is not merely that apartheid is the antithesis of the fundamental democratic values of our open liberal society which you call in aid: but the racism of apartheid is fundamentally and intolerably anti-human. Apartheid discriminates on nothing more than the biological circumstances of one's birth: there is nothing over which one has less control. It is moreover the case, as you will be well aware, that the South African Government does not allow prominent and vocal domestic opponents of apartheid to freely leave and return, nor does it allow prominent and vocal international opponents of apartheid to visit South Africa for the purpose of publicly challenging apartheid doctrine and practice. To give aid and comfort under these circumstances to official South African spokesmen to promote apartheid doctrine and policies would not only be utterly at odds with the positions Australia has consistently taken in world forums, with our practice in specific policy areas such as sporting contacts, with our international human rights treaty obligations, and with the dignity and aspirations of our indigenous Aboriginal minority, but would lack any justification in principle. It was because of his awareness of their intent to promote the racial obscenity of apartheid that my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, decided last month not to issue visas to Messrs Durr and Rajab. For any of the proposed delegates to be a member of the South African Parliament adds nothing to the quality of the case you make, given the utterly unrepresentative and undemocratic character of the South African Parliament with its wholly racially-based franchise. If you are able to give me a written assurance that the proposed presence in Australia of the South African politicians, as the Opposition's guests, will not be exploited by them for the purpose of promoting apartheid, the Government will be prepared to approve the applications for visas which may result from your request. Yours sincerely R. J. L. HAWKE Senator Kilgariff —It is shameful and bigoted. Senator JESSOP —Senator Kilgariff said that it is shameful and bigoted, and I think it is. It is quite incredible that the would-be president of the first republic of Australia-which is his ultimate dream-a champion, supposedly, of freedom of information and human rights, should apply censorship in this way to people who have stated that they had no intention of talking about apartheid. They were simply coming to Australia to talk about current developments in that country, and they have been significant events. The South African Government has made approaches to Mozambique and other countries in southern Africa with respect to terrorist activity which has caused great bloodshed amongst the black and white people in that part of Africa. It took the initiative and has successfully negotiated with those other countries with respect to terrorist activity. The thing that confuses me is that Mr Hawke apparently voted against the issue of a visa for Mr Farris Glubb, reported to be a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, because this would have been contrary to the Federal Government's visitor entry policy of refusing entry to members of political organisations if they are involved in violent acts or advocated politically violent acts. I think that is fair enough. I commend him for that action. Senator Kilgariff —With good reason. Senator JESSOP —I commend him with good reason. The point is that the duplicity and the double standards of the man emerge because last year the Government issued a visa allowing Miss Mavis Nhlapo, the co-ordinator of the women's secretariat of the African National Congress in Zambia, to enter Australia. During her visit Miss Nhlapo addressed several public meetings which received national media publicity. I would like to quote two statements. One appeared in the Canberra Times on 23 June last year. Miss Nhlapo was reported as saying: . . . the ANC, caused bomb attack in Pretoria recently in which 17 people were killed and about 200 injured, was not accidental, but was part of the new phase of war against the South African Government and its supporters. The second statement appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 June. She was reported to have said: We have no illusions of the effects of our war on ordinary people. There are Africans and whites caught up in the cross-fire, but we believe the war has to go on for the destruction of the regime. I believe that that is a very significant point. It clearly shows the duplicity and double standards of the Prime Minister who on one hand allowed a self- confessed terrorist to enter Australia and put her views on southern Africa and, on the other hand, refused a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation entry because he is associated with an organisation which is in turn associated with violent acts. I have three other letters here which complete the scenario and which I would like to have incorporated in Hansard. They give a chronological description of the fiasco that we regard this matter to be. The last correspondence that I had with the Prime Minister was in the form of a telegram which I sent to him on Friday, 13 April, a good day to send it. I shall read the telegram for the benefit of the Senate. I said in the telegram: I refer to information contained in a letter to you from Mr Rajab in which he states inter alia that 'I am a member of the South African Indian Community and an opponent and critic of apartheid because my community has suffered much discrimination and injustice under this system. I am a founder member of a political party called Solidarity which inter alia stands for the abolition of apartheid and which opposes: (1) all discrimination based on race, colour and creed; (2) the curtailment of freedom of speech and movement; (3) all discriminatory legislation; and (4) bannings and detentions without trial'. As he is obviously a vigorous opponent of apartheid I call on you immediately to issue unconditional visas to the three South Africans invited by me and 51 of my colleagues to allow them to freely express various views on current events in Southern Africa. Unless you revise your previous decision your Government will stand condemned as being an opponent of free speech and against all principles of Australian democracy. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate these other letters in Hansard. Leave granted. The letters read as follows- LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION April 6, 1984 Dear Prime Minister, In reference to your letter of April 5, 1984 concerning the visit of three South Africian politicians to this country and your demand for assurances about them on my part. You know, from my words and actions, that I regard the apartheid system in South Africa as an obscenity. My record on these matters is unimpeachable. I regard your conditional approval as obnoxious. My party is completely dedicated to free speech and we do not share your view that people coming to this country ought to be first told what they may or may not say. In passing, I point out that the three persons invited to visit this country include an Indian Muslim and a representative of the Opposition party. Given this, it is extraordinary that you appear to be opposed to the expression of points of view about developments in Southern Africa by persons of very divergent background, view and outlook. Your sincerely, ANDREW PEACOCK The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P., Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. Phone 614 4022 LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION 11th April 1984 Dear Prime Minister, I have noted the contents of your letter of 10th April 1984, particularly your refusal to grant entry visas to the three visiting South African politicians. I reiterate that you and your Government are ignoring the basic issue-that of free speech. There is no requirement for me to justify my position on apartheid. My record on that subject is quite clear. And the attitudes of myself and the Opposition have remained consistent with those expressed by previous Liberal Governments. So, too, my attitudes to free speech have not changed. Your Government is revealed as censoring free speech and qualifying the essential ingredient of an open, liberal and free society-the right to hear, and the right to exchange, different points of view and information. Your attitudes towards the free exchange of views in this country have been of concern to me for some time. Your Government's intended illiberal defamation bill which will curtail the freedom of the domestic press bears this out. Now you are extending the same sort of restrictions to visitors. For these actions your Government stands condemned. Your sincerely, ANDREW PEACOCK Hon. R. J. L. Hawke, A.C., M.P., Prime Minister, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600 Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600. Phone 72 6394 PRIME MINISTER CANBERRA 22 March 1984 Dear Senator Jessop Thank you for the letter of 6 March 1984, signed by yourself and a number of your colleagues, concerning the Government's decision to refuse visas for two South African politicians who had applied to visit Australia in order to participate in seminars to be sponsored by the South African Embassy. Your views have been noted. I would only comment, in connexion with your statement that the seminars were not to receive publicity through the media, that they were in fact reported in a provocative manner in the National Times of 17-23 February. I would also draw your attention to a report in The Age of 6 March that the South African Government was considering requesting visas for other politicians in order to 'test the resolve' of the Government. Yours sincerely R. J. L. HAWKE Senator D. S. Jessop Australian Senate Canberra, ACT 2600 Senator Kilgariff —You have received no answer to the telegram? Senator JESSOP —No. I think that is offensive to me. I propose to write a letter based on the text of that telegram and hope that Mr Hawke will realise the democratic fairness of agreeing to issue uncensored visas for those people to come here. I believe that there are four main bridges of communication between countries. One is by trade, the second by playing sport, the third by cultural exchange and the fourth by interparliamentary contact. I do not suppose that there is a country in the world about which we could say that we agreed with everything that happened in respect to its internal policies. I am sure that most countries would disagree with some of our internal policies. But the best way to understand these countries and to help accelerate change if we think that is desirable is to get closer to them, to understand their attitudes, to be a little more conciliatory. It is not that we are in favour of apartheid, but if we want change, the best way to do it in my view is to establish those communications, those necessary bridges. In that way perhaps the offensive policies which we believe are being carried out in South Africa can possibly be changed. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(7.46) —I am speaking tonight principally in my role as the Chairman of Estimates Committee D. Yesterday afternoon events unfolded which I regard as an affront to this Committee. Estimates Committee D has recently completed examination of the additional estimates of the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The estimates of the first four departments I mention were examined on 3 May, that is, last Thursday. The estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were examined on Friday, 4 May . The Committee has not yet reported to the Senate. Indeed, it has not yet considered its report. Yet yesterday afternoon, copies of the transcript of evidence were held by many members of the Opposition and at least two Opposition members of Estimates Committee D quoted from that transcript. I must say that I was surprised at their doing so prior to the Committee having considered its report. An official Hansard record was not available. Government senators did not have copies of the transcript. That includes me, as Chairman of the Committee, and the other two members of the Committee, Senator Coates and Senator Zakharov. Many questions need to be addressed in relation to yesterday's sorry exhibition by the Opposition. Some of the questions are: First, who requested the transcript of the proceedings of Estimates Committee D? Second, from whom was the request made and when was the original request made? Thirdly, did the person who asked for the transcript say what use was to be made of the contents of the transcript? If so, what was said? Fourthly, when were the transcripts made available to the Opposition, to whom were they provided and who handed the transcripts over? Fifthly, did the officers who made the transcripts available also make them available to any Government members? If so, to whom and when? Sixthly, why were the transcripts not made available to Government members of Estimates Committee D, including the Chairman of the Committee? Finally, are members of Estimates committees to expect that this shoddy, slipshod behaviour of officers of this Parliament will occur again? Mr Deputy President, I will not ask the President to investigate these matters. I intend to ask the Senate to refer the whole issue to the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges for investigation and report. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.49) —Mr Deputy President, as I know that the Estimates committees are almost due to meet, I, too, will be brief. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —To be accurate, they are more than due. Still, it is up to the Senate as to when it adjourns. Senator KILGARIFF —In regard to the criticisms that Senator Colston has just made, I have no doubt that the questions he asked will be answered. But I would have thought that if any member of the Senate or of any Estimates committee who was interested in the particular work of a committee or in the Hansard record of a committee had asked for a copy of that Hansard he would have been given it. That is the understanding. It is not issued. I understand that they were interested in sections of the Hansard, they asked for them, and they got them. Today in Darwin, in the Northern Territory News, there was a report which said that a television crew from Simon Townsend's Wonderworld has been refused permission to film Ayers Rock. It said that the refusal was part of a blanket ban by the Mutitjula Council on all professional filming at Ayers Rock. The Wonderworld team, which is now working on 17 Territory stories, could not be contacted for comment. They had planned to film Ayers Rock at sunrise and at sunset and the famous tourist walk. The report said that the ban would be in force until a meeting next Tuesday between Aborigines and authorities involved to discuss future guidelines for filming Ayers Rock. The report said that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, was informed of the Council's decision this morning, and that a Pitjantjatjara Council spokesman said that he knew of the ban but did not know why it had been imposed. The report said that all applications for filming at Ayers Rock would be shelved until after the meeting next Tuesday. Because this matter has come to me just this evening, I feel that I must take up the Senate's time for a few minutes to ask the authorities to bring some stability and common sense into this overall situation. It is not an isolated incident. I am looking at a transcript of an AM program on 21 March in which it was said that 99 per cent of applications to film the Rock are approved. Of course, that is not correct. We apparently have a saga of professional teams who have training in this sort of thing and who have made applications time and again, but who are refused permission. This is doing great damage to the tourist industry. It is also doing damage to the Aboriginal people of the area. I ask the Minister to look into the whole matter. If it is necessary to have guidelines, for goodness sake let him bring in the guidelines and bring some stability and common sense into the situation. I review briefly what has happened in the past. I am not digging back very far. I notice that on 21 March this year the Aborigines barred British singer Val Doonican from singing at Ayers Rock. A British Broadcasting Corporation team from the United Kingdom had come to carry out the filming, at great expense. As I understand it, this fellow, in carrying out the promotion of Ayers Rock, would have had an audience of some 12 million people. The mere fact that he was refused permission meant that it got very poor publicity. Looking back at the overall situation, I have to say that the Northern Territory for some 30 years, originally under the Northern Territory Reserves Board and then later under the Northern Territory Conservation Commission, has done an excellent job of looking after the Rock to ensure that Aboriginal paintings are properly protected. That was the position for some decades. At the beginning of their work at Ayers Rock there was scarcely an Aboriginal family there. At the beginning of tourism at that time I doubt that anyone was living there. Over these years the Rock has been properly protected, well and truly. Now the rock has been handed over to the Aboriginal people of the area. It was my understanding that an authority would be formed through which government and Aboriginal people would participate in the control and administration of the Rock. Unfortunately, this has not come about. The result is that the promotion of Ayers Rock is now in danger. Millions of dollars are at risk. Yulara Village is being constructed, at a cost of between $140m and $160m. In that category there is tremendous investment. But when we have television crews coming from all parts of the world wishing to film the Rock to promote this area, they are refused. As I have done previously, I ask that the Senate be given a report on the matter. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seems to think that being asked for a report justifies continual attacks on the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. The Chief Minister and his Government are doing their best to ensure the safety of the rock and to look after the people of the area. Perhaps the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will give some guidance on the overall situation in this case and bring to bear some responsible action. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.55) —The adjournment debate has ranged over a number of topics. I shall respond just briefly, as most matters will need to be referred to appropriate Ministers. Senator Townley raised matters critical of the liberation movement in Africa and alleged that our Government was supporting terrorist movements. I reject those allegations, but I shall refer the specific matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), as I will the matters raised by Senator Primmer, who reiterated to some extent his concerns about aspects of the conduct of the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of some officers. I believe that the Foreign Minister has substantially replied on more than one occasion to the matters raised by Senator Primmer. However, I shall refer those matters to the Minister. Senator Missen raised a very serious matter concerning the report of the death of Arnold Ap, who was being held in custody by the Indonesian Government. Senator Missen acknowledged that he had had an answer to a question on this subject from the Foreign Minister today and he incorporated that answer in Hansard. However, Senator Missen wants further information on the matter and assurances that it is being treated with appropriate seriousness and urgency. I am sure that it is being treated with appropriate seriousness. If there is any more information that the Foreign Minister can make available to Senator Missen, I shall ask him to provide it. Senator Jessop also raised matters concerning Africa-in this case the decisions taken by our Government concerning the issue of visas to certain South African citizens who were not able to give the assurances the Government sought and, therefore, have not got visas. I think that those matters have been raised before, but I shall refer them to the Foreign Minister. Senator Colston, the Chairman of Estimates Committee D, drew the Senate's attention to some very improper activities, in his view, surrounding the release to Opposition members of draft transcripts of some parts of the report of the considerations of Estimates Committee D. Senator Colston pointed out that this material had been released to Opposition members but not to the Chairman or to Government members of that Committee. As a result, Senator Colston has presented to the Senate a number of questions to which he seeks answers. He has put the Senate on notice that he will be asking the Privileges Committee to investigate this grave matter. Senator Kilgariff commented on the matters raised by Senator Colston. He also commented on a report in a Northern Territory newspaper concerning the proposed filming at Ayers Rock. Clearly that matter is within the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Clyde Holding, and Senator Kilgariff has asked for a report on this matter from Mr Holding. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.59 p.m. The following papers were presented: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Release of Lists- Proposal No. 1 for 1984-List of Queensland Non-government Schools for Commonwealth Schools Commission. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the Schedules to the Subsidy Scheme in relation to the States of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, dated 30 April 1984 The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 680) Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 5 March 1984: (1) Has the Australian Government signed any treaties or covenants regarding the rights of prisoners; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Government considered any consequent action regarding the conditions faced by prisoners in State prisons around the country. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Australia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A number of articles of that covenant deal with the rights of people in detention. In particular, article 10 provides that all persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. (2) The conditions of prisoners in State prisons is the responsibility of the State Governments. At present there is no legislation under which the Commonwealth Government has power to intervene where problems arise in the treatment of prisoners in State prisons. In this situation, the Commonwealth Government can do no more than point out the nature of Australia's obligations under the Covenant and exhort the State Governments (and the Northern Territory Government) to observe these standards in the treatment of prisoners. The State and Northern Territory Governments are also aware of, and subscribe to, the more detailed provisions of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. These rules were approved by resolutions of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. The Rules are not an instrument to which the procedure of signature applies but a statement of principles which Governments are called upon to honour. The Australian Bill of Rights has, as was announced recently, been approved in principle by the Government, although its introduction has now been deferred. The Bill of Rights, being a statement of fundamental human rights, would be an appropriate place for the Commonwealth to give legislative effect to provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, such as article 10, on an Australia-wide basis. I would expect the issue to be taken up in that context. (Question No. 689) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) Is the report published in the Northern Territory News on 8 February 1984, indicating that several hundred thousand dollars will be spent on the upgrading of Darwin Airport correct; if so, exactly how much will be allocated to the interim upgrading. (2) What area of the airport will be upgraded and what nature of work will be carried out; and when is it anticipated that this upgrading work will begin. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to my response which appeared in Hansard on 27 March 1984, page 754, in answer to the questions he raised in the adjournment debate on this matter. (Question No. 727) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) Can the Minister for Aviation confirm that of seven cities suggested for stopovers in the new Qantas Airways Limited fare concession deal, Adelaide is not included; if so, can the Minister explain why South Australians are excluded from the benefits of increased tourism, even though the packages are being subsidised by all Australians. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) It has been practice in recent years to leave international airlines serving Australia, including Qantas, as free as possible to set fares in accordance with their commercial judgment and to meet market demands. This makes for a more competitive environment which is in the interests of consumers generally. I am advised that on 1 January this year Qantas introduced a new promotional fares package for travel from the United States to Australia which contains a range of new fares designed to attract more American tourists to travel to Australia. I am also advised by the company that these fares are cost related and not subsidised by other Qantas fares. This package enables United States tourists to travel to Australia and stop over at Australian cities which are directly served by Qantas. These points include Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. Qantas does not operate online services between Adelaide and the United States. However, the new Qantas fares package does allow tourists from North America wishing to make a combined visit to New Zealand and Australia to travel on Qantas services to Perth on a routing which enables the tourists to stopover at Adelaide en route to Perth using the same fare as tourists travelling to Perth on direct Qantas services from North America. The honourable senator will also be aware that Trans Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia recently introduced fixed price discount air fares aimed at encouraging greater domestic travel by international tourists. These fixed price fares offer generous stopovers for open jaw or circular travel at discounts of up to 48 per cent off the normal economy fare. As an international gateway port, Adelaide is well positioned to gain maximum advantage from the tourism benefits which will flow from these fares.