Thursday, 25 September 1986 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 of Australia: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with the mismanagement of the Victorian Otway forests, and we pray that: the Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant expressions of public concern, eg. petitions, by the formation of a Committee to represent public requests. by Senator Sanders (from 34 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that Australia should not host nuclear weapons in its territory or in Australian waters; and that the presence of nuclear-armed warships makes a priority nuclear target of ports being visited; and that the safety precautions for handling and deployment of nuclear weapons are inadequate to guarantee safety from accidents; and that the following warships, all capable of launching nuclear weapons deployed in the British or United States navies, will be visiting Sydney between 29 September to 13 October-HMS Illustrious, HMS Beaver, HMS Fort Grange, HMS Manchester, HMS Amazon, HMS Olmeda, USS Missouri, USS Paul F. Foster, USS Oldendorf; and that these warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons will be participating in the 75th Anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy We therefore call upon the Australian Government to: prohibit the entry of nuclear weapons to Australia; and to deny access to Australian ports of foreign warships unless an assurance is received that they are not carrying nuclear weapons; and to require that foreign warships participating in the anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy not be carrying nuclear weapons in Australian territorial waters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Vallentine (from 1,209 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: (i) the welfare of many employees and their families depends upon a healthy, expanding gold mining industry; (ii) the success of many small businesses in gold mining towns also depends upon the continued profitability of gold mining and prospecting operations; (iii) the Federal Government's proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining and prospecting represents a threat to the profitability of these industries and will therefore cause widespread unemployment and depression throughout the whole gold mining industry. Your petitioners therefore call upon the Federal Government to reject any proposal to introduce a tax on gold mining or prospecting thereby ensuring that the spectacular growth of the industry over recent years is continued. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Crichton-Browne (from 27 citizens) and Watson (from 75 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- There is a threat to medicine by an alliance bet-ween some greedy doctors, private health funds and private hospitals who, since the inception of Medicare have run a campaign to destroy Medicare. People, especially pensioners, are suffering. We call on the Government to investigate why our taxes are being spent to prop up private hospitals. To carry out an overhaul of the Medicare legislation to close the loopholes to prevent this exploitation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, being concerned that the Australian Government, in breach of its own stated policies, has lifted the bans on the sale of uranium to France; demand that the Government re-impose the bans on such sales, and further, that the Government ratifies and strengthens the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty to prohibit uranium sales within the region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sanders (from 93 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- There should be no introduction of payment for pensioners pharmaceuticals. The proposed deletion of 46 products from the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme will cause great hardship to pensioners. There should be no substituting of cheaper drugs for those prescribed by the Doctor. There should be full testing of all pharmaceuticals by the Australian Authorities before they are released on the market. And that Australia should develop its own manufacturing industry in Pharmaceuticals and stop relying on all overseas multinational drug companies. by Senator Childs (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Pain, suffering and death are occurring as a result of the action of sections of the medical profession and private health insurance companies. People are being forced into private health funds and denied treatment until they do so. We call on the Government to take action against these doctors and private health insurance companies who are engaging in this practice. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Childs (from 71 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should ask the Federal Government to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the con- tinued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 12 citizens) and Richardson (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable George Georges-Senator for Queensland and the members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament: We, the undersigned citizens and electors of Queensland do humbly pray that the Senate will: (i) Oppose the introduction of the $250 Tertiary Administration fees that were announced in the Federal Budget on Tuesday 19th August 1986. (ii) Vote against any legislation that would attempt to establish this Fee, given that it is setting a precedent for further increases in fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Georges (from 540 citizens). Petitions received. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on Wednesday, 8 October 1986, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision for more liberal rights of standing and for related purposes. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate noting with alarm the lastest Australian Bureau of Statistics analysis of the Australian labour market shows that- (a) Queensland has the worst performance of any State in Australia with the highest rate of unemployment of any State in Australia, at 9.4 per cent, compared to the Australian average of 8 per cent (in original terms) for August 1986; (b) Queensland has the lowest average weekly male earnings for May 1986 at $396, 6.9 per cent below the Australian average, and also has the second lowest average weekly female earnings at $252.80, which was 10 per cent below the national average; (c) Queensland has the lowest rate of job vacancies of any State at 0.5 per cent in August 1986 when the Australian average was 0.9 per cent and in August, Queensland had only a total of 4,400 vacancies which compares with 4,600 in Western Australia and 4,300 in South Australia; (d) Queensland has the second highest rate of industrial disputation of any State, with 293 days lost per thousand employees in the year ended May 1986, 14.9 per cent higher than the Australian average of 255 days lost; and (e) Queensland has the second lowest number of overtime hours per employee working overtime for the month of August 1986 at 6.54 hours below the Australian average of 6.62 hours worked overtime, condemns the National Party for their mishandling of the economy. The PRESIDENT —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 declare the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of the Parliament and of the members and committees of each House, and for related purposes. I advise honourable senators that this is in accordance with a Bill that I tabled in the Senate on 4 June last which I indicated at that time I would be introducing in this present period of sittings. Motion (by Senator Powell) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. Bill presented by Senator Powell, and read a first time. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(10.06) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- As honourable senators will recall, the Act to be amended by this Bill was passed by the Senate on 22nd August this year. During debate on the Bill, Senator Haines identified several deficiencies in its contents and the Australian Democrats had a series of amendments designed to remedy these and strengthen the legislation overall. Unfortunately, as that was the last day of that sitting, to have proceeded with the amendments then would have delayed passage of the Bill and the implementation of the significant reforms contained in it. Senator Haines quite rightly pointed out that getting the legislation into operation as quickly as possible was most important, and it was extremely regrettable that government business had been handled in such a way that time constraints prevented the amendments being dealt with at the time. The Government's mismanagement of this situation was matched by the attitude of the Opposition. It was quite extraordinary to read that Senator Chaney protested vehemently about the extended sitting time to deal with the affirmative action legislation. He did not think, he said, that there would be very many people in Australia who would regard the extension of parliamentary sitting hours to Friday night as being necessary in that particular cause-that is, the affirmative action legislation. Senator Chaney went on to say that if the Senate were dealing with rising interest rates, or the fall in private investment, for example, there might have been some virtue in it. The legislation being given priority, the significant and long-delayed affirmative action legislation was, Senator Chaney assured the Senate, peripheral to the central concerns of most Australians. I would suggest to Senator Chaney that the women of Australia and those men who believe in equitable treatment for all people, would take a rather different view. Certainly the Democrats did not share Senator Chaney's opinion. It remains true, however, that the Act is defective in that it does not go far enough and this Bill deals with its outstanding shortcomings. As I indicated earlier, the Democrats are concerned to strengthen the Act. The women of Australia have waited a long time for affirmative action legislation and there is an obligation on this Parliament to ensure that the legislation takes the best possible form. The Government and the Opposition could have no argument with the amendments proposed in this Bill if their commitment to affirmative action is as strong as they would have us believe in their rhetoric. The first amendment deals with the companies which took part in the affirmative action pilot program. Section 7 of the principal Act sets out the timing for development and implementation of affirmative action programs for relevant employers. There are different operative dates for relevant employers in different categories, but we believe that the companies which took part in the pilot program should be required to commence the development of their programs at the first stage of implementation. Whichever of the categories these companies fall into, the experience of the pilot program should have readied them for implementation. No doubt it will be suggested that this disadvantages the companies concerned, that other companies in the same category would have longer to prepare themselves. This is nonsense, of course, because the groundwork has been laid by participation in the pilot program and no disadvantage would be suffered. The second amendment in this Bill is adding to the powers and functions of the Director of Affirmative Action. It makes provision for the provision and development of special programs to meet the particular needs of women of Aboriginal descent, women from non-English speaking backgrounds and disabled women. It is beyond my comprehension why this has not been provided for in the principal Act. Certainly it is beyond dispute that these three groups of women are particularly disadvantaged and it is therefore even more imperative that their needs are pinpointed in the Act. At the time the Act was debated it seemed unlikely that either the Government or the Opposition would support this Amendment. I hope that they have thought again about the issue, but if not, these three groups of women would be very interested to hear the reasons for opposing the amendment. Quite simply, there are no reasons for opposing it, but any flimsy excuses offered for doing so would make fascinating reading. Let us hope for the sake of these particularly disadvantaged groups of women that the outcome will be positive. The amendment to section 13 of the principal Act provides, in effect, for more detailed reporting than is required at present. As honourable senators are aware, the affirmative action program provided for in the Act has eight steps. The Australian Democrats believe that each of these eight steps should be reported upon in the reports to be lodged with the Director of Affirmative Action. Again, it is difficult to see any arguments against this amendment. The major parties support the legislation and presumably believe that the eight step program is worthwhile. It is surely just as worthwhile to have separate reports on each of these steps. The additional information would be invaluable and would assist in future development of the program. I fear that in this instance, too, support will not be forthcoming from the Government and Opposition and their reasons will have no more substance than those they have advanced in opposing other improvements of the Act. The amendment to section 14 is designed to exclude higher education institutions from being able to make confidential reports. The provision for confidential reporting is clearly necessary where commercial considerations apply-as they do with some employers covered by the Act. But this is not the case with higher education institutions and such institutions should, therefore, submit public reports on their affirmative action programs. In addition, of course, these institutions are funded by public money and this adds further strength to the argument in favour of public reporting. The insertion of section 14a in the principal Act makes provision for separate reports by subsidiaries. It is obviously desirable that the Act be absolutely clear about the possibility of subsidiary corporations reporting separately. There are numerous conglomerates throughout Australia where each subsidiary would qualify independently under the Act. This amendment would not require the reporting to be done one way or the other-that is, by either the conglomerate or by each of the subsidiaries-but enables it to be done either way. A different approach will be appropriate in different circumstances and the amendment makes allowance for this. The amendment to section 18 addresses a concern raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The section deals with requests for further information, and, as it stands, no minimum period is stipulated nor is it requested that the period specified be reasonable. The Democrat amendment adopts the latter solution and we share the Committee's concern that the section was drafted without providing for this. The section 19 amendments are very important. Employers who fail to meet their forward estimates without reasonable excuse ought to be named by the Director of Affirmative Action in the report to be tabled in Parliament. The insertion of this amendment will remedy one of the significant weaknesses in the Act. Similarly, the other amendment to section 19 strengthens the Act in a significant way. As it stands, the Act contains no sanctions other than the possibility of a relevant employer being named in the Director's report. At the very least, the naming of employers who fail to submit reports as required by legislation should be mandatory and the amendment alters the section accordingly. The naming in Parliament of all employers who fall short of the expectations of the legislation must occur if the Act is to be taken seriously. The final amendment, while leaving the matter to the discretion of the Minister, ensures that regard will be had to the extent of compliance with the Affirmative Action Act in relation to financial assistance to higher education institutions. By making this provision, the Act is strengthened and a further incentive to comply is included. With all these amendments, as I said before, the Australian Democrats are seeking to improve a most important piece of legislation. We have always expressed our support for the principles embodied in the Affirmative Action Act, and the Act in the form it passed was a step in the right direction. We now have the opportunity to make it even better. I hope the major parties' opposition to these amendments has disappeared on calmer reflection. There are no arguments of any substance that could be mounted against them and they undoubtedly strengthen various aspects of the affirmative action programs. I urge honourable senators to consider the implications for the women of Australia and to vote for the amendments accordingly. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.07) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill I am introducing today is to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Freedom of Information (Charges) Regulations to reduce administrative costs and increase revenues. The main points are: Introduction of application fees for requests for access to documents and for internal review of decisions; to increase the hourly charge for search and retrieval of documents; to introduce an hourly charge for decision-making time; to exempt persons seeking personal income maintenance documents from all charges and fees; to maintain after 1 December 1986 the present 45-day time limit for processing requests; to strengthen provisions for refusal of requests on work load grounds; to reduce the grounds for remission of charges; to reduce the obligations on agencies to publish section 8 and section 9 statements and to report statistics; and miscellaneous amendments of a minor nature. Background As was clear from the introduction of this Bill in the House of Representatives on Budget night, the Government continues to be gravely concerned by the costs of operation and administration of the Freedom of Information Act and by the very low contribution made by users towards meeting those costs. Honourable senators will recollect that in June 1985 the Government issued new directions designed to maximise disclosure of information whilst reducing the costs of administering the Freedom of Information Act. Administrative aspects of those measures, particularly the clearance role of the Attorney-General's Department, have been valuable in reducing the number of disputes about release of information. Furthermore, costs of processing requests have continued to decrease as agencies gain experience and improve procedures. However, the other major aspect of the Government's directions-changes to the charges regulations designed to simplify charging procedures and recoup a more significant contribution by users of the legislation-was frustrated when the amendments were disallowed by the Senate on 13 November 1985. In 1984-85 the operation and administration of the FOI Act cost the Commonwealth between $16m and $19m, depending on the precise allowance made for overheads, and the preliminary figures for 1985-86 indicate a cost between $14m and $16m. Although there is some indication that the total number of requests is levelling off-preliminary estimates for 1985-86 are 36,000 to 37,000 requests as against 33,000 in 1984-85-it is clear that administration of the Act will continue to involve very substantial Commonwealth expenditure. It is also clear that under the present charging structure only very small contributions will be received from users of the legislation-about $22,000 in 1984-85 and perhaps $60,000 in 1985-86-or rather less than half a per cent of the administrative costs. Australia simply cannot afford such a situation. The problems identified by the Government in June 1985 remain. Ways must be found to reduce costs and encourage efficient use of the Act. Economic circumstances are such that the Government must take action now. In recent months an inter-departmental committee has been examining options for FOI costs savings. This Bill draws on the work of that committee, though there will doubtless be further possibilities for longer term consideration when it reports. The operation and administration of the FOI Act is also currently under review by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That wide-ranging review will doubtless encompass costs questions. Whilst the urgency of the current economic situation requires Government action now, this does not preclude further consideration of the issues in the light of the reports of the inter-departmental committee and the Senate Standing Committee. I shall briefly describe the main features of this Bill. Further details may be obtained from the explanatory memorandum. Application Fees The Bill proposes a $30 application fee for all requests. This will cover the cost of basic administrative procedures involved in processing the request. The existing $8 charge in respect of administrative procedures will be subsumed in this fee. It will be necessary to pay the fee when making a request. Until the fee is paid there will be no obligation on the agency to deal with the request. Processing Charges The existing charge of $12 per hour in respect of time spent searching for and retrieving documents is to be increased to $15 per hour. This increase takes some account of increases in wages and other costs since the charge was set in 1982. Where requested documents cover sensitive areas such as security, law enforcement, business, policy development and the like, it is often necessary for agencies to consult widely about possible implications of disclosure and to give very careful consideration to the consequences. This can be a costly process which must often be carried out by senior officers. It has accordingly been decided to introduce a new charge of $20 per hour in respect of the time spent determining what access can be granted to a document. Internal Reviews Whilst internal review is certainly less costly than review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and is therefore a desirable intermediate stage, there is nothing in the existing charges structure to encourage an applicant to first consider whether he has been properly treated by the agency. He can always hope that review will result in release of more material, or in other favourable action, at no cost to himself. It is accordingly proposed that there be a $40 application fee for internal review of agency decisions. Personal Income Maintenance Documents No fees or charges will be payable by persons seeking access to their own personal income maintenance documents. The only exception will be where the person has already had access during the preceding three months and there has been no material change to the documents concerned. Remission The existing provision for remission of charges provides that account must be taken of whether a request relates to a person's personal affairs, whether payments would cause hardship and whether disclosure of the documents is in the public interest. The last criterion has caused particular administrative difficulty. In practice many claims for remission on public interest grounds have been generated by members of Parliament who have other effective means of access to Government information or by media organisations operating on a commercial basis which are well able to make some contribution towards meeting the costs of processing their requests. It is proposed to remove this as a mandatory consideration in considering remission of charges. The existing remission provisions are not procedurally suited to dealing with remission of the new application fees. A new section will permit remission of an application fee on the limited grounds that payment would cause financial hardship and that the documents relate to the applicant's personal affairs. 45-Day Time Limit As the Act stands at present the time limit for responding to requests would reduce to 30 days from 1 December 1986. Meeting this reduced time limit would require extra agency staff. It is proposed to maintain the present 45-day time limit. Refusal on Work Load Grounds Some requests have absorbed very large resources, adding up to many staff months or even staff years. Three difficulties have been encountered in applying the existing provisions in this Act enabling refusal of requests on work load grounds: First, only large requests directed towards classes of documents can be refused. Requests for large numbers of individually specified documents cannot be refused; Secondly, there is no simple test of what constitutes an unreasonable work load; Thirdly, the tests take account only of time spent searching for and retrieving documents but not, generally speaking, time spent in consultation and deliberation regarding exempt content. The first difficulty will be met by extending the exemption to cover requests for large numbers of identified documents. As for the second difficulty, whilst it would seem to involved a substantial diversion of resources in a large Department to spend, say, more than 5 full staff days processing a single request, such a diversion of resources could totally disrupt a small agency or office, particularly if it arose when staff were heavily pressed by other commitments. It is not therefore at this stage proposed to introduce an absolute limit on workload. The test will simply be whether the likely total work in dealing with the request would substantially divert the resources of the agency from its other operations; would interfere substantially with the performance by the Minister of the Minister's functions; or would result in substantial delays in dealing with other requests. The last point has been introduced as it would seen quite unfair that one person who made a large request should be able to hinder access to Government information by other persons. The third difficulty will be met by providing that the total work shall be estimated having regard not only to the location and retrieval of relevant documents but also to the consultation and deliberation involved in deciding upon exempt matter. Publication of Information on Agencies At present agencies are required to separately publish statements concerning their organisation and functions. This results in significant duplication of material normally included in agency annual reports. The Bill proposes that the publications be amalgamated. The Act also requires publication in the Gazette of an index of manuals, guidelines and other internal documents used by agencies in decision-making. There has been little evidence of public demand for such materials sufficient to justify printing and publication in bulk. The Bill proposes that copies of the index be available for inspection and purchase at the information access offices already established. This `publication on demand' will avoid printing and publication costs without diminishing public access to the information. Agency Statistics The Attorney-General is currently required to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the FOI Act. A wide range of statistical information must be provided to my Department by agencies for this purpose at considerable cost. It is proposed to very much simplify this statistical information which must be reported. The Bill proposes a reduction to the minimum considered necessary for monitoring the general operation of the Act. Miscellaneous Amendments Apart from minor amendments consequential on the major changes described above, the Bill makes an amendment of section 45 to ensure that material provided in confidence to government by non-government sources will be protected even where the information has been incorporated in internal working documents. As the Health Insurance Commission now has certain functions in relation to investigation of Medicare fraud and overservicing it is no longer appropriate that the Commission should be totally exempt from the operation of the Act. Its transfer from Part I to Part II of the Schedule will provide that it is exempt only in relation to documents concerning its competitive commercial activities. Application The new fees and charges in the Bill will take effect only in respect of future applications and requests. Conclusions It is estimated that total revenue to be derived from the above measures will be about $4m per year. Additionally, the measures in relation to publication, statistics and burdensome requests will result in cost savings of about $4m. Together, the measures will reduce the net cost of the FOI Act by about $8m or 50 per cent. This is a significant contribution towards meeting the Government's budgetary objectives. Honourable senators will note that these savings do not result from significantly reduced rights of access. The express exemption from fees and charges of persons seeking access to personal income maintenance documents will protect those who are most vulnerable in respect of access to information they need. The remission provisions will continue to protect other persons where hardship might otherwise prevent access to personal documents. In other cases requesters will make a contribution towards the costs of providing the benefits they receive. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act 1985 to give effect to the announcements made by the Government on 12 June 1986. It adjusts the rate of duty and excise on petrol and diesel which is hypothecated to the Australian Land Transport Program Trust Fund. This measure, and the decision to hold payments in 1986/87 under the Australian bicentennial road development program and ALTP to $1,250m, form an integral part of the Government's overall economic strategy. The Bill will reduce the rate of duty hypothecated to the trust fund by 0.235c per litre from 1 July 1986. It also authorises the repayment from the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the revenue generated in the period from 1 July 1986 by the 0.235c per litre adjustment, taking into account subsequent indexation adjustments and any interest earned by these funds while they are retained in the trust fund. These amendments do not alter the Government's fundamental commitment to developing a better road system for Australia. This Government-more than any of its predecessors-has highlighted the need for a road system which serves the interests of the Australian community, including our industries. We have recognised that roads facilitate the interaction of commerce between our major cities, between communities and within communities. We are bringing all Australians closer together. Road transport is a fundamental part of the Australian way of life. Well designed and constructed roads make significant contributions to Australia. They reduce costs. They save lives. They encourage all forms of industry. They repay to Australia far more than their cost. However, in the current economic circumstances where Australia is under pressure from external factors it is essential that each sector of the economy and the community makes a contribution towards the overall well-being of the country. The downwards adjustment and the excise rate proposed will reduce payments to the Trust Fund by about $50m a year from that originally projected for 1986/87. Turning to details of the Bill, clauses 1 and 2 contain the usual citation and commencement provisions. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the rate of excise payable to the ALTP Trust Fund to be 3.610c per litre from 1 July 1986 by the insertion of section 14a into the principal Act. This varies by 0.235c per litre the rate which would otherwise have applied from 1 July. Clause 4 of the Bill makes a minor adjustment to the wording of section 15 (7) of the Principal Act. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for the revenue generated by the 0.235c per litre adjustment to be paid out of the ALTP Trust Fund to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. In accordance with the established indexing procedure for the rate of duty of excise on motor spirit and diesel fuel under ALTP, this variation of 0.235c will also be indexed with the associated revenue to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund in due course. Clause 5 also provides for any investment income which may accrue to these moneys whilst they are held in the ALTP Trust Fund to likewise be paid to Consolidated Revenue. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(10.10) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill before the Senate makes a number of important changes to areas within the health portfolio. Most of these changes have already been announced by the Government as part of the Budget and are, in the main, measures which will provide substantial reductions in government expenditure. Honourable senators are aware of the difficult economic circumstances which necessitated a rigorous scrutiny of all areas of government expenditure. Clearly the health portfolio had to play its part, but the Government was concerned to ensure that any changes should be made in the fairest possible way. The amendments in this Bill are part of an overall package of measures within the health area which achieves the Government's Budget objective of restraint with equity. In relation to Medicare the Bill will increase the maximum gap payment between the Medicare rebate and the schedule of fees from $10 to $20 from 1 November. Complementary changes not requiring legislative amendments are the deferral of schedule fee increases until 1 November and the 25 per cent reduction in schedule fees for 18 pathology tests, which has applied since 1 August. These changes, together with the increase in the Medicare levy to 1.25 per cent, have enabled the Government to preserve its commitment to a universal health insurance scheme based on the principles of equity, simplicity and cost efficiency. Importantly, by adopting this particular strategy, the Government has been able to maintain the Medicare rebate at 85 per cent of the schedule fee thereby ensuring the continuation of bulk billing which overwhelmingly works to the benefit of pensioners and the disadvantaged. Since 1 July this year nearly 52 per cent of all medical services under Medicare have been direct billed and the vast majority of these were for services provided to pensioners and the disadvantaged. In addition, the maintenance of an income related levy ensures that the burden of paying for health care is spread across the whole community on the basis of ability to pay rather than simply on the sick. Other major amendments included in this Bill are the establishment of a new pharmaceutical benefits scheme which will provide assistance to those with chronic illnesses and other high volume users of prescription drugs. The isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme is to be abolished from 1 January 1987, although the Commonwealth will continue to fund replacement arrangements administered by the States. Commonwealth controls over the approval and categorisation of private hospitals are to be removed. This latter change accompanies the announcement in the Budget that Commonwealth subsidies to private hospitals will cease from 1 October 1986. I turn now to more detailed explanation of the major features of this Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for an increase in the maximum patient contribution between the Medicare benefit rebate and the schedule of fees from $10 to $20 to take effect from 1 November 1986. This is the first increase in this gap since it was introduced in 1978. The increase takes into account the effects of inflation over the past eight years. However, the change will only effect those Medicare services costing more than $67. Therefore the increase will not affect the vast majority of items involving consultations, which are by far the most common type of services. While the maximum gap payment will increase, the Government will continue to maintain safeguards for people faced with substantial out-of-pocket expenses for medical services. The $150 maximum annual total gap between benefits and schedule fees will be maintained, which means that once the ceiling of $150 has been reached Medicare benefits are payable at 100 per cent of schedule fee levels. Private patients in hospitals will continue to have gap payments for medical services covered by their private hospital insurance organisations. In addition, as I have already noted, the Government has retained the 85 per cent rebate level which will enable practitioners to continue to direct bill for pensioners and the chronically ill. Clause 7 of the Bill repeals provisions in the Health Insurance Act dealing with the approval and categorisation of private hospitals. These amendments will deregulate controls over private hospitals. An associated measure, also announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, is the removal of Government subsidies to private hospitals from 1 October 1986. As a result of this measure private health insurers will incur additional benefit liability but it is not expected to significantly impact on contribution rates. The exact increases in contribution rates will vary from fund to fund and State to State but, as most funds have accumulated significant levels of reserves, increases should be moderate. Mr President, deregulation of private hospitals is part of the Government's overall strategy of streamlining government and assisting the private sector by removing overlapping and unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. De- regulation also fulfils the undertaking given by the Government to the Australian Medical Association in April 1985, as part of the settlement package for the New South Wales doctors' dispute. The Government has long held the view that the regulation of private hospitals is more appropriately a State responsibility. Only the States have the detailed knowledge required for the rational planning and provision of both public and private hospital services. On the other hand the appropriate role for the Commonwealth is to develop national health policy objectives-not the detailed administration of controls that the States should be administering. The devolution to the States of Commonwealth controls over the approval and categorisation of private hospital accommodation was an integral part of the original Medicare proposals and is a logical corollary to withdrawal of the subsidy. These controls, while required to prevent unnecessary Commonwealth expenditure, in practice, duplicated State controls. The associated abolition of the present government subsidy will not mean a loss of revenue for private hospitals because basic table fund benefits will be increased by the amount of the subsidy-indeed, hospitals will save in administrative costs by removal of the Commonwealth from the claims and payment process. At the request of the industry the current system of paying hospital fund benefits according to the categorisation of private hospitals will be continued as an administrative arrangement for an interim period pending introduction of revised patient classification arrangements from March 1987. As from 1 October 1986 the Minister for Health will declare a new basic hospital table which will ensure that each private hospital receives benefits for insured patients at least equivalent to the sum of the fund benefits and Commonwealth bed day subsidy that were applicable to patients of that hospital on 30 September 1986. In addition the Bill provides for continuation of applications and cases before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal commenced before 1 October, if this is the wish of the applicants. As a transitional arrangement, the Commonwealth will consider assisting certain private charitable, religious and community hospitals which historically have cared for needy uninsured patients and whose viability has been reliant on the subsidy. The assistance will be in the form of specific purpose lump sum grants to eligible hospitals for the remainder of this financial year. Longer term considerations for these hospitals will be discussed between the Commonwealth and the States. To be eligible, hospitals will have to demonstrate that they have a history of caring for uninsured patients and that a grant to maintain financial viability is necessary to enable continuation of existing services. While dealing with the amendments that the Bill makes to the Health Insurance Act, I would refer honourable senators to two minor but important changes. Sub-clause 4(3), which amends the definition of `prescribed dental patient', will enable the Minister, by determination, to extend Medicare cover of the cleft lip and palate scheme, to include children with other facial deformities as was originally intended by the scheme. Clause 9 of the Bill amends the secrecy provisions of the Health Insurance Act to further limit the permissible disclosure of information under the exceptions to this provision. In its 79th report, the Senate committee on regulations and ordinances raised some concerns about certain possible disclosures of information and this amendment is designed to meet the committee's concerns. Part III of the Bill contains amendments to the National Health Act 1953. The amendment made by clause 15 is included to enable the Government to proceed with its proposal to introduce a new program designed to reduce the incidence of hepatitis B among new-born babies most at risk of contracting the disease. This is achieved by including in section 9B of the Act a capacity to expand by regulation the list of diseases for which vaccines may be provided. This approach has the advantage of enabling a quick response to future needs. I turn now to clause 16 of the Bill which repeals the provisions of the Act establishing the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme-IPTAAS. As previously announced, this repeal is intended to take effect from 1 January 1987, although the Bill preserves the rights of patients who have commenced journeys to seek medical treatment before that date. As in the case of private hospital deregulation, the abolition of IPTAAS represents a rational streamlining of an inappropriate Commonwealth activity and therefore should be welcomed by all honourable senators. Indeed, as many of the criticisms of the current IPTAAS arrangement have come from honourable senators opposite, I would be very surprised if the abolition of the scheme in favour of funding to the States does not receive bipartisan support. In the second reading debate on the introduction of IPTAAS in the other place, my colleague Dr Blewett expressed concern about the monstrously bureaucratic arrangements associated with the administration of the scheme. Unfortunately that concern has proven to be fully justified. Since becoming Minister for Health, Dr Blewett has received numerous representations which, whilst supporting the basic principles and objectives of the scheme, have nevertheless criticised many of its aspects. The criticisms have come from a wide range of sources including State Ministers for Health, Federal and State members, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, groups representing specific classes of patients, groups representing rural patients, social workers associations and individual patients. The scheme has also been criticised by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The States and Territories are, of course, responsible for the planning and provision of health services and for the actual provision of specific patient transport services such as land and air ambulances and inter-hospital transfers. In super-imposing IPTAAS the Commonwealth inappropriately stepped into an area of State and Territory responsibility and effectively distanced the States from valuable planning information on the effectiveness and distribution of their own services. Moreover, the Commonwealth is poorly placed to administer any scheme of this nature, having no suitable delivery and processing mechanism outside of the capital cities and at best only a second-hand knowledge of available services. On the other hand State hospital and welfare delivery networks are well established and some already provide cash advances to the needy in anticipation of IPTAAS benefits. Accordingly the States and Territories are well placed to develop and administer more flexible and effective measures for those in need. In deciding to abolish IPTAAS, the Government was particularly conscious that, despite its faults, the program has provided a tremendous amount of much needed support to patients in rural and isolated areas and that the needs of those people must be protected. Accordingly the Commonwealth will continue to provide substantial funding for patient transport assistance. Funds for the States and the Northern Territory will be provided through special revenue assistance grants. On a full year basis this funding represents a 26 per cent increase over IPTAAS benefits paid in 1985-86 and the funds will be distributed among the States and Territories in proportion to the actual distribution of IPTAAS benefits in that year. This generous increase in funding will be more than sufficient for the States and Territories to provide effective patient transport arrangements or to provide a greater frequency and range of specialist services to people in remote areas. It will also enable them to meet any demands that might arise for inter-state transport, including from capital city residents, for highly specialised services such as liver and heart transplants, magnetic resonance imaging and lithotripsy. I emphasise however, that the new arrangements are a matter for each State and Territory to determine, having regard to its own distribution of specialist services and the specific needs of its rural population. On 1 September last year, benefits were introduced to the basic hospital insurance table for day surgery and for the cost of surgically implanted prostheses in public and private hospitals. Sub-clause 14(1) of the Bill extends these benefits to apply to prostheses supplied in approved free-standing day surgery facilities. There are now five such facilities in Australia. I believe that the continued development of new surgical and anaesthetic techniques will enable many more surgical procedures to be safely completed without the need for an overnight stay, greatly reducing hospital costs and disruption to patients. I take this opportunity to endorse the work of the pioneers of day surgery in established hospitals and new specialised facilities, and hope that the health insurance industry will recognise the potential savings by offering greater cover on their supplementary tables to further encourage this development. The next major changes made by the Bill concern pharmaceutical benefits. Clause 21 of the Bill provides for an increase in the maximum general and concessional patient contributions for pharmaceutical benefits. These changes will be effective from 1 November 1986. General patients will pay a variable amount up to a maximum of $10 per prescription for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit. Whilst the maximum a patient will pay is $10, the Government estimates the average patient contribution will be about $7.30. The concessional patient contribution will increase from $2 to $2.50. This will be the first increase in the contribution since its introduction on 1 January 1983 and is broadly in line with movements in prices and incomes since then. As in the past, pensioners holding a pensioner health benefits card and their dependants, and sickness beneficiaries holding a health benefits card and their dependants, will not be charged for pharmaceutical benefits. In those few cases where a special patient contribution applies, patients will continue to pay that special patient contribution as well as the standard charge, if applicable. This also applies to pensioners. From 1 November 1986 pharmaceutical benefits for war widows and their dependants will not be available through the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Instead, pharmaceutical benefits will be available to these persons free of charge through the pensioner pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This change will result in improved efficiency of administration. A major feature of the amendments is to incorporate a safety net which will apply to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits to general and concessional patients. The amendments provide that, from 1 November 1986, no individual or family, including concessional beneficiaries, will have to pay for more than 25 pharmaceutical benefits scheme prescription items in any calender year. In the first instance the `safety net' will run for 14 months, from 1 November 1986 to 31 December 1987. After that, the scheme will apply for each calendar year. After 1 November 1986, individuals or families will be able to obtain a prescription record form from their pharmacist. This is provided for in clause 19. The pharmacist will enter on the form a record of each prescription supplied. After 25 entries, the pharmacist will issue the individual or family with a pharmaceutical benefits entitlement card which will allow them to receive free pharmaceutical benefits for the remainder of the entitlement period. It is not anticipated that the administrative work load on individual pharmacists will be significant and agreement has been reached with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia on payments to pharmacists for issuing pharmaceutical benefits entitlement cards. I point out to honourable senators that this scheme has been developed with the full co-operation of the Pharmpay Guild of Australia. Indeed, the Guild's assistance has made the task that much easier and I would like to place on record my appreciation of the valuable contribution made by the Guild in the development of this new pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In addition, the Department of Health and the Guild will continue to monitor the impact of the new scheme upon the community to maximise its effectiveness and ensure that there are no abuses of the new arrangements. Clearly the Government had to rein in costs during a time of economic restraint, but in doing so we have been able to increase protection for high volume users of pharmaceutical benefits scheme drugs. I believe this is a long overdue reform and one which should have the support of both sides of the Senate. I also remind honourable senators that, as part of the Government's changes to assist those with chronic illnesses, arrangements have been made to pay an annual grant to the Australian Diabetes Foundation to provide diabetics with essential supplies including insulin syringes and needles. This is an important element of our chronic protection plan and one which has been welcomed by the diabetes organisations. Part IV of the Bill contains amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1966. That Act was amended in 1981 to introduce a batch release system for biological therapeutic goods, such as vaccines, so as to enable the quality of products to be assessed before release to the public. Clauses 41 and 42 of the Bill insert new sections 23da and 23ea into the Therapeutic Goods Act. These are machinery amendments intended to correct legal inadequacies in the earlier provisions. Under the new provisions the Secretary of the Department of Health will be empowered to obtain specific information from a manufacturer, and to have official tests performed on samples, before a specific batch can be released for use. The amendments will ensure that the batch release system provides an effective mechanism of preventing the marketing of unsafe or ineffective biological products. Clause 44 of the Bill inserts into the Therapeutic Goods Act a new regulation-making power to provide, amongst other things, for the inspection of manufacturing companies' operations and procedures which will ensure the Australian public is supplied with therapeutic goods that meet quality, safety and efficacy requirements. The Bill also contains a number of minor and drafting amendments. Financial Impact Statement The increase in maximum patient contribution payable for Medicare services from $10 to $20 will result in savings of $18m in 1986-87-with introduction from 1 November 1986-and $29m in a full year. The increase in patient contributions for pharmaceutical benefits, together with the introduction of the `safety net' measures, is expected to reduce government pharmaceutical benefits scheme expenditure by approximately $56.6m in 1986-87 and approximately $67m in 1987-88. The abolition of the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme and the provision of alternative funding to the States and Territories will result in a total Commonwealth expenditure of $24.2m for patient transport assistance in 1986-87. The sum of $13.3m will be provided for the remaining life of IPTAAS and takes into account the backlog of claims and the lag in submitting claims after the abolition. The sum of $10.9m will be provided to the States and Territories for the first 6 months of 1987. The full year equivalent of $21.8m will be indexed in future years. No expenditure arises under this Bill from the change to allow regulations under section 9b of the National Health Act. However, the cost of providing for a new program of hepatitis B immunisation for at-risk babies is estimated at $2.8m in a full year. The deregulation of private hospitals is expected to result in savings of $0.25m in 1986-87 and $0.5m in a full year. These savings should be considered in association with the abolition of the private hospital subsidy, which will save $90m in 1986-87 and $143m in a full year. Business Impact Statement The repeal of legislative controls over private hospitals is a substantial deregulation initiative and is in keeping with the Government's resolve to reduce regulatory controls over private industry. Care has been taken in the development of the new pharmaceutical benefits scheme to minimise the administrative input by pharmacists and to adequately compensate them where additional work is unavoidable. Pharmacists will be required to enter prescription details on the prescription record form, issue pharmaceutical benefits entitlement cards and to satisfy themselves that individuals have an entitlement to the benefits being claimed. The new arrangements will also provide the opportunity for pharmacists to develop a closer and more professional relationship with individual patients with the obvious potential for increased business activity. They will also be relieved of the administrative work load associated with making claims of the Commonwealth for the 40 million prescriptions which will no longer attract a government subsidy. Their cash flow will improve significantly as they will receive immediate payment for these prescriptions rather than waiting for reimbursement from the Commonwealth. The amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act will not affect the normal manufacture of satisfactory batches of biological products. Every effort will be made to avoid any delays by performing the necessary tests at the same time as they are being performed by the manufacturer. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 7 October 1986, at 2 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy-President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined be notified to each Senator. Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Opposition Senator and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Debate resumed from 24 September, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Senator Messner had moved by way of amendment: At the end of motion, add: `, but the Senate- (a) expresses its concern that the level of discounting of superannuation, Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (DFRB) and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (DFRDB) pensions imposed by the legislation has not yet been proposed in a National Wage Case, let alone given effect by a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and notes that: (i) the Bill imposes on Commonwealth superannuants, without consultation, a burden greater than that proposed for the community generally, in that it will come into effect before equivalent discounting of wages is even considered, (ii) discounting of DFRB and DFRDB pensions further erodes conditions of service in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at a time when ADF resignations are at near-crisis level, and (iii) the Bill breaks, for the second time, Labor's 1983 election promise not to cut DFRB and DFRDB benefits; and (b) calls on the Government to direct the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal, as a matter of urgency, to inquire into the adequacy of pay and conditions of service in the ADF compared with those in the private sector and public service'. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance)(10.13) —When the debate on the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 was interrupted last night I had just been dealing with the ignorance of Senator Newman who had challenged Senator Cook, among others, to state his view on this legislation if it affected the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Most of those salon lizards who infect the Liberal Party of Australia and who make public comments about unionism are abysmally ignorant of anything to do with unions or industrial relations. As I pointed out yesterday, almost three quarters of the people who are affected by this legislation are, or have been, members of unions which are affiliated with the ACTU. I also dealt with her conflict of interest as the spouse of a doubly superannuated- Senator Newman —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: At the beginning of my speech yesterday I declared an interest in this matter. I think that the Minister is out of order in claiming that I have a conflict of interest. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —Of course there is no point of order. She does not want me to say it again. She declared an interest but she did not spell out the details of it. She did not tell us that her spouse is doubly superannuated. He draws $13,000 a year from a defence forces pension, $13,000 a year from a parliamentary pension, having already commuted $130,000 of a parliamentary pension into a lump sum, and he also had a commuted lump sum from his defence forces pension. This senator for Tasmania has the audacity to protest about the Government's reducing the indexation factor by 2 per cent for one of the double pensions which her spouse receives. I might add, just for the record, that if by some misfortune Senator Newman should happen to croak-I make it perfectly clear that I do not want that to happen-he would get a third pension as well of the order of $30,000 a year and he would then become a triple dipper. Senator Walters —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. We are used to the tirade from Senator Walsh. I assure the Senate that if this side of the chamber wanted to elaborate on the superannuation of former Government members, such as Mr Justice Murphy, we could really go to town. We just have a higher standard on this side of the chamber. Madam Acting Deputy President, I draw your attention to the standard of Government members. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —If Senator Walters is concerned about standards, and particularly since she has brought the High Court judiciary into this, why has she not initiated an inquiry into former Chief Justice Sir Garfield Barwick and the circumstances surrounding the fortuitous appearance of that letter of resignation as a director of Mundroola Pty Ltd in 1981 which had a 1974 date on it, with the ink still wet, so to speak? Why has she not raised the question in the Senate of the failure throughout that period to lodge with the Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales the company tax returns for Mundroola as the law of New South Wales requires? Senator Mason —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I understand we are short of time today. The Minister is clearly out of order. He is talking about Sir Garfield Barwick and the Senate is debating the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill. From what the Minister has said we would not know what he was talking about. I ask you to call upon the Minister to address himself to that topic. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I remind the Minister that he is replying in relation to the Superannuation Bill. Would the Minister please keep to that matter. Senator WALSH —Certainly. I just point out for the record that I am responding to the spurious points of order raised by a couple of Tasmanian senators who cannot take it. If they want to become professional politicians they have got to learn how to take it, and they obviously cannot, or they have not learned yet how to take it. The legislation was introduced for a number of reasons and, without any apology at all, one of those reasons was the Government's desire to cut expenditure. I apologise to Senator Messner, who is not in the chamber, for having unwittingly misstated a fact yesterday when I said that a saving of $12m was the full year effect of this measure. The $12m saving is in fact that which is attributable to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. When making that point I had failed to take into account the additional savings because of the two defence retirement schemes and one other minor scheme. The full year saving from the legislation, in total, is over $17m. I apologise to Senator Messner for not having taken that all into account. One reason the Government decided to introduce this legislation was to reduce government outlays, something which assorted members of the Opposition are all in favour of until it actually comes down to the specifics of doing it. The second reason was to provide equity between those who have retired from Commonwealth employment and those who are about to retire. As some people here would know-I doubt whether Senator Newman would, but some people in the Opposition would know-in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme the pension entitlement is tied to retirement salary and is then indexed annually by the consumer price index movement to the year ending March, with the adjustment being made from the first pension payment date in July. Salaries have already been discounted by 2 per cent as from 1 July; that is salaries presently paid have increased in the previous 12 months or six months by 2 per cent less than the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index. Therefore, those who have retired from the Commonwealth Public Service within the last few months or are likely to retire in the future will have a lower pension entitlement because the pension is determined by the salary applicable at the time of their retirement and then adjusted for CPI movements. So, given that the salary they received had increased by less than the CPI, the pension that they would receive later likewise would be lower than it would otherwise have been. Therefore, had the Government not done this, there would have been discrimination in favour of those Commonwealth employees who had already retired compared with those Commonwealth employees who are about to retire. Senator Mason —There is faulty logic in that. Senator WALSH —Frankly, Senator Mason, I do not think that you have the faintest idea or comprehension of what logic is. I will deal with you in a minute. As one of your colleagues once said: `Mental retards suffering from delusions of grandeur'. That came from the mouth of a Democrat. Frankly, I do not think that anybody could sum up the Democrats collectively more succinctly or accurately than one of Senator Mason's colleagues did when he described one of his other colleagues as a `mental retard suffering from delusions of grandeur'. The second point, less directly applicable, was that social security pensioners in general will, as a result of Budget decisions, have to wait for two months longer than they would previously have had to wait for the indexation adjustment of social security pensions. The actual effect of that, of course, is a function of the rate of inflation, but at present inflation rates that is a de facto discount of about one per cent for those people. So it seemed to the Government incongruous that this particular group of pensioners should be exempted from making any contribution to solving the Budget problems which were facing the Government and the country, and we decided to introduce the legislation which is now before us. Senator Mason said that the pension is the only source of income for these people. That is probably true for a tiny minority of cases. But in the great majority of cases it would not be the only source of income, because, among other things, the rate of pension paid to most Commonwealth superannuitants is not particularly high. Indeed, it is below the point at which they are entitled to a partial social security pension. The majority of Commonwealth superannuation scheme pension recipients would be entitled to a partial social security pension. But there are, of course, some outstanding examples. I direct Senator Mason's attention, in particular, to the former Treasury Secretary, Mr Stone, who receives a pension in excess of $33,000 a year and is a journalist, a company director, a lecturer and a high profile member of the extreme Right, which is presently in the process of taking over the Liberal Party of Australia. In a Budget in which everybody else in the community was being asked to make some sort of contribution to overcoming the budgetary problems which confronted the country, it seemed to the Government incongruous that somebody such as Mr Stone should be allowed to escape from what we saw as the obligations which Mr Stone and people of his type had to the rest of the country. Senator Vigor —Does anybody who disagrees with you, Senator, not have any civil rights? Senator WALSH —My objection to Senator Vigor is not so much that I disagree with him; it is the puerile nature of the issues which fascinate him and, in particular, the puerility of the questions that he asks at Senate Estimates committee hearings and the way he prowls around from one committee to another. Senator Mason —I rise on a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. Will you direct the Minister to discuss the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill, not Senator Vigor's very diligent and useful efforts at Estimates committee hearings? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —The Minister is responding to an interjection, but I would remind him to keep to the point of the Bill. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. If I may claim your indulgence to make one last comment on this: If Senator Vigor ever put on the agenda something that was worth arguing about, I would enjoy arguing with him. The trouble is that he never does. Senator Mason asked whether, if the economic situation got more desperate, the Government would make any adjustments, clearly implying that the Democrats would not. That does not surprise me at all. The Democrats are off with the fairies. If there is a fundamental deterioration in the country's economic circumstances, such as a collapse of the terms of trade, of the type which has happened in the last 18 months and which has wiped $6 billion off national income, the response of the Democrats is to pretend it has not happened. That is what Senator Mason is advocating, that no matter what fundamental deterioration there is in the economic circumstances no adjustments in government policy should be made to accommodate that. It does not surprise me that that is the view of the Democrats, off with the fairies and Max Gillies as they are. I am grateful to Senator Mason for having drawn attention to the fact that it is the view of the Democrats that instead of making adjustments which are compatible with changed circumstances, governments should just pretend that the circumstances have not changed. I now come to the amendment moved by the Opposition. This amendment displays something which is frequently displayed by the Opposition, and that is either culpable ignorance or wilful misrepresentation. That becomes apparent in the first paragraph of the amendment, which says-I paraphrase the words-that this piece of legislation seeks to discount the indexation of government pensions in anticipation of a discounting of wages in the national wage case. The actual words are: . . . imposed by the legislation has not yet been proposed in a National Wage Case . . . Has the Opposition not noticed that there has already been a 2 per cent discounting of wages? Indeed, if the legislation incorporated provisions which are compatible with the further discounting of wages which the Government is seeking, the discount factor would be 4 per cent, not 2 per cent. The amendment goes on to say: . . . the Bill imposes on Commonwealth superannuitants, without consultation, a burden greater than that proposed for the community generally . . . That is false. It seeks to spread the sorts of sacrifices, which the rest of the community has been called on to make, to people such as Mr Stone, who receives $33,000 a year pension at 57 years of age-I think it would have been a good deal more than that if he had retired at 65-and who has very substantial income, no doubt, from a variety of other sources. Referring to the defence forces schemes-this was the substance of most of Senator Newman's speech, which I presume Ollie wrote for her-the amendment states: . . . discounting of . . . pensions further erodes conditions of service in the Australian Defence Force . . . I observe for the record that the measure does not affect conditions in the Australian Defence Force because, by definition, it affects only people who have retired from the defence forces. The amendment continues: . . . at a time when ADF resignations are at near-crisis level . . . The argument was developed that a retirement pension lower than it would otherwise have been would be an incentive to members of the defence forces to resign. I found the logic of that argument curious. The logic, or rather the illogic, of the Opposition's argument is that paying a lower retirement pension encourages people to retire. Senator Mason, who is the Australian Democrats magician, apparently endorses that argument. That does not surprise me. The amendment continues: (b) calls on the Government to direct the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal . . . to inquire into the adequacy of pay and conditions . . . That is just a pure sop. In other words, it calls on the Government to surrender to a statutory body power over the determination of wages and conditions. That comes from the Party that purports to believe in deregulation. The last paragraph of the amendment argues that the Government should call for an inquiry into pay and conditions by some non-elected body and then automatically endorse its recommendations. My attention has been drawn to the fact that such an inquiry was conducted only 12 months ago-in September last year. Most importantly of all, this cowardly amendment which the Opposition has moved does not address the major feature of the Bill-its effect on Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners. Frankly, the Opposition does not have the guts to criticise a measure which entails a marginal reduction in the benefits received by Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners. The Opposition does not have the guts to do so because it knows that it is widely, although somewhat erroneously, believed by the community that all Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners are fat cats who have been sponging to an unacceptable degree on the taxpayer. The fact is that most Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners receive moderate pensions, but there is the odd spectacular case, such as Mr Stone, to which I referred earlier, where the pension paid is very high. These sleazebags in the Opposition have moved this Clayton's amendment-- Senator Michael Baume —On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. The word `sleazebags' has been made popular in the other place by the Treasurer. As I understand it, it is not a parliamentary phrase. I find it objection- able and I ask that it be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —As I understand it, the word was not directed at the Opposition. That being the case, there is no point of order. Senator Robertson —It was used in a collective sense. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I suggest that there is no point of order but I request Senator Walsh to moderate his language and be attentive to the desires of the Senate. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. If Steve Martin or Steve Baume, or whatever false identity he is presently using, finds that offensive, I am happy to withdraw it. Senator Michael Baume —I just find you offensive. Senator WALSH —You find me offensive? Well, frankly, Senator Martin, that does not worry me at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Walsh, would you please direct your remarks to the Bill before the chamber at the moment and through the Chair. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. Indeed, if Senator Martin did not find me offensive, I might be worried about it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT — Order! Senator Walsh, there is no Senator Martin in this chamber. If you wish to refer to people in this chamber, please do so by using their correct names. If you wish to refer to them by names they use elsewhere, you may do so but not with the title of Senator. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. Well, if Steve Martin did not find me offensive I think I would have good reason and ample justification for examining my behaviour and other things. Personally, I believe that being regarded as offensive by Steve Martin is a compliment. The point I was making is that this Clayton's amendment which this gutless Opposition has brought forward deals only with the defence forces retirement benefits scheme. Members of the Opposition have said: `Oh, is it not dreadful that the old diggers are going to have their pensions discounted by 2 per cent; is it not dreadful that Senator Newman's spouse, from one of the pensions he receives from the Commonwealth, is going to get $260 less than he would otherwise have got? The loss of that $260 from one of the pensions which the spouse of Senator Newman is presently receiving from the taxpayers of Australia is regarded as sufficiently important for Senator Newman to speak in the debate on this legislation - - Senator Newman —On behalf of those diggers whom you are trying to cut. Senator WALSH —It is on behalf of the honourable senator's spouse, who is going to lose $260 a year because of this legislation. Senator Newman is so egocentric that she felt compelled to speak in this debate and, in the process, parade her abysmal ignorance of everything to do with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. If the Opposition had any integrity, it would have moved an amendment which addressed the major feature of this Bill and that is, of course, its effect on Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners; and, instead of moving Clayton's amendments, if it were really serious it would also vote against the legislation. Senator Michael Baume —I take a point of order. The Minister has imputed motives to the Opposition on its failure to do something which in fact it does. The Opposition complains that the Bill imposes on Commonwealth superannuitants without consultation a burden greater than that proposed for the community generally. In fact, the imputation that the Opposition is gutless is in fact a disgraceful and improper one and based, as usual, on total error as is clearly evidenced in the amendment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator WALSH —The Clayton's amendment that the Opposition has moved does not at any stage mention the Commonwealth superannuation scheme, but it mentions the defence forces retirement benefits, both in total and in acronyms, in two separate paragraphs. It does not mention the Commonwealth superannuation scheme because the Opposition knows what the somewhat inaccurate perception of the electorate is. The electorate believes that Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners are all fat cats who have been sponging on the taxpayers to an unacceptable degree for decades. The Opposition knows that and therefore it does not have the integrity or the courage to criticise this measure on the ground that it affects Commonwealth superannuation scheme pensioners. It picks up what it thinks is the safe ground of defending the defence forces retirees because it believes that the public does not have the same perceptions about them. But the Opposition does not even follow its criticism to its logical conclusion of voting against the legislation. I invite the Opposition to reject this legislation and then face the odium of the electorate for having done so. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Messner's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Powell, J. F. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Siddons, J. R. Haines, J. Teague, B. C. Jessop, D. S. Townley, M. Kilgariff, B. F. Vanstone, A. E. Knowles, S. C. Vigor, D. B. MacGibbon, D. J. Walters, M. S. Macklin, M. J. Watson, J. O. W. Mason, C. V. J. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Black, J. R. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coleman, R. N. McKiernan, J. P. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Richardson, G. F. Devlin, R. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Elstob, R. C. Ryan, S. M. Evans, Gareth Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Hamer, D. J. Coates, J. Hill, R. Bolkus, N. Lewis, A. W. R. Cooney, B. Carrick, Sir John Morris, J. Alston, R. K. R. Gietzelt, A. T. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reynolds, M. Chaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 7 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Archer, B. R. McClelland, DouglasAulich, T. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael McIntosh, G. D. Baume, Peter McKiernan, J. P. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Maguire, G. R. Black, J. R. Messner, A. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coleman, R. N. Puplick, C. J. G. Collard, S. J. Ray, RobertColston, M. A. Reid, M. E. Cook, P. F. S. Richardson, G. F. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sheil, G. Durack, P. D. Short, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Teague, B. C. Georges, G. Townley, M. Giles, P. J. Vanstone, A. E. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Jones, G. N. Withers, R. G. Kilgariff, B. F. Zakharov, A. O. Knowles, S. C. Haines, J. Powell, J. F. Harradine, B. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Mason, C. V. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.52) —I should like to draw attention to a couple of matters that emerged from the second reading debate. In the first place the extraordinary stunt just put on by the Australian Democrats is worthy of note. They have as one of their basic principles the determination not to have any part in a similar situation to that which emerged in 1975. They have a determined principle underlying their political approach that they will not resist Budget Bills. As a result it is interesting to see that this basic principle has been dropped in this matter, for one simple reason. In order to survive the Australian Democrats need a double dissolution. The motivation behind their voting against this expenditure legislation rests entirely on their desperate need for a double dissolution in order that they can survive. In a half Senate election there is no way that the tattered remnants of the Australian Democrats could survive. We now see them bunging on this stunt in opposing the second reading of this Budget legislation in a way that is clearly and obviously evidence that their most sacrosanct principles are clearly for sale if there is an opportunity to make a quick killing. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Come back to the Bill, Senator. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you, Madam Temporary Chairman. In relation to the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986, I note that the activities of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the second reading debate clearly demonstrated an attempt to terrorise and silence an Opposition senator who was properly raising matters of a general nature, which nonetheless did have some impact on her. She declared that interest initially. No one in the chamber would have been under any misapprehension about the fact that the Opposition senator in question had declared an interest-a minimal interest which Senator Walsh admitted was no greater than $260, I think was the figure. Yet Senator Walsh used that interest which had been publicly declared as a weapon to try to denigrate the issues raised by that senator. He tried to terrorise that senator into not raising such issues simply because she or any other senator may have an interest in them. If Senator Walsh thinks that he can terrorise this Opposition by making that sort of offensive and typically disgraceful attack on the motives of Opposition senators, he is much mistaken. He will find that we will not be terrorised by his offensive mouth, his personal imputations and his manner of behaviour, which is skirting round the borders of respectability in any area, let alone in this chamber. I had hoped that this chamber would have been a place where behaviour would be on a much higher level than that displayed today and last night by Senator Walsh, in his totally improper attempts to silence Opposition members by raising personal matters as he did, after the senator in question had revealed her interest. He had no grounds on which he could deny the very sound points raised by Senator Newman. His only response was the sort of personal abuse in which he continually resides. It has been improperly and nonsensically claimed by Senator Walsh that we do not care about Commonwealth superannuitants and that our amendment which was carried does not take their problems into account. For the Minister's benefit, I would point out that part of our amendment suggests that one reason we are expressing concern about the Bill, while agreeing that as a Budget Bill it should pass, is that it imposes on Commonwealth superannuitants, without consultation, a burden greater than that proposed for the community generally. There is no way that those words can be given any other meaning than that we are expressing concern about the impact on Commonwealth superannuitants. It is interesting that this is the day on which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is to make a statement about changing arrangements related to invalidity retirement and so on within the Public Service, which I imagine will go some way down the path to correcting some of the anomalous and curious situations which Senator Walsh himself finds offensive, if we can believe internal memoranda that come our way from the Department of Finance. He pretends to be the great defender of Commonwealth public servants when this very day he will be involved in a matter which will quite properly diminish some of the rip-offs that he knows full well have existed in these arrangements. His hypocrisy in accusing the Opposition of ignoring Commonwealth superannuitants when one can see that that is not the case does not surprise the Opposition because it is typical of the behaviour we have come to expect of and tolerate from Senator Walsh. I am looking forward to hearing the extent to which the Government has corrected the anomalies pointed out by the Waste Watch Committee in this area of retirement. Senator Walsh —Tell us about Neil Brown's car bill. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That kind of interjection demonstrates once again the total nature of Senator Walsh's behaviour in this place. Neil Brown's car bill has nothing to do with any of the points raised in this legislation. It has nothing to do with anything other than personal abuse of a member of the Opposition. The Minister's only capacity to become involved in debates in this place is by way of personal abuse when he has no answer to the sound, cogent and effective points being raised by members of the Opposition. As I said, I hope that when the Government addresses itself to these matters today in another place it will correct an anomalous situation which was drawn to its attention by the Waste Watch Committee. I expect that if there is any response it will represent yet another success for that Committee. The Opposition has no further amendments to the Bill at this stage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(11.03) —I wish to address my remarks to the first clause of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. Senator Michael Baume's contribution to this debate worries me greatly. The Opposition seems to find it very difficult to tell the difference between Supply, which is spending money, and taxation, which is raising money. With the prospect of the Opposition becoming the Government after the next election, I believe that the country is in for a dreadful time if the people in charge cannot tell the difference between spending and earning. The definitions that Senator Baume bandied around today were bandied around yesterday by Senator Newman. I could expect Senator Newman to get things wrong as she is only new to this place, but I would have thought that Senator Baume, having been a resident of the other House, might have known the difference. The essential fact is that the Budget measures refer to all Bills that are brought in at this time. They could be money Bills or tax Bills; they are the appropriation Bills and they could be concerned with measures announced in the Budget-for example, they could be about putting a new postbox somewhere in the Australian Capital Territory. They could be every type of measure. The Australian Democrats have pledged that we will not block Supply. The Supply Bills are generally those referred to as Appropriation Bills Nos 1 and 2, which come in twice a year. We have the main appropriation Bills at this time, and the supplementary appropriation Bills in the autumn session. That is the essential difference. Again, money Bills are so defined under the Constitution because the power of the Senate is limited in regard to them. I hope that at some stage the Opposition parties will work out the difference between those matters. I reiterate that it seems pointless to the Democrats that the Opposition parties should say that the Senate shall not vote against any matter which is raised in the Budget itself. That is an extraordinary imposition on the power and the constitutional obligations of the Senate. We intend to continue reviewing each of the matters in the way that this House should review them. Yesterday Senator Newman said that this was `a legal distinction'. It is, and this is what this House is all about-making laws. The honourable senator might not like legal distinctions. Is is unfortunate that she is in here now because that is what we do here. We make laws and we make legal distinctions. For her to bandy those words around seems to indicate a very odd idea of what this place is about. We are here to review laws and to make sure that those distinctions are made correctly. I would hope that in future when Senator Newman speaks she makes sure that she knows the difference between those various measures-Budget measures, tax measures, money Bills and, importantly, Supply, which was the whole issue in 1975, as Senator Baume well knows. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.05) —I rise to speak at the Committee stage of the debate on Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986. In doing so I thank Senator Michael Baume for his gallantry in coming to my defence against the ogre on the Government benches. I must say, however, that I have no need for such a gallant, nice though it is to have somebody riding in my colours. I assure Senator Walsh that bullying will not silence me. Bigger and better bullies have pulled my pigtails in the schoolyard and I am afraid they could not silence me either, so I think he is in a losing game. Senator Walsh —I give up. I suggest you learn something about unionism before you talk about it. Senator NEWMAN —I am not interested in whether the honourable senator gives up or not; I just warn him that he has a big job ahead of him if he wants to silence me. I draw the Committee's attention to the facts of this Bill because it is easy, with Senator Walsh muddying the waters, for its purpose to be lost sight of. I wish to outline the salient points relating to this legislation, which are of real concern. First of all, the pensioners of whom we are speaking today have their future pensions calculated on the basis of the consumer price index which runs from March last year through to March this year. So in a very real sense the costs to these pensioners of 15 months ago are now being met and paid for. Those payments have been made since the beginning of July. We are not talking about prospective income which is to be cut; we are talking about current income which is to be cut and that is a very different matter from future wage increases being discounted. This money which has accrued from 15 months ago to three months ago, which is currently being paid and which will be cut in October. That is a very different matter. It is a serious matter for all these pensioners, no matter what their former employment. It is sad but true that unions are much more concerned with their current membership, the people who are in work. Therefore, we have not had the sort of outcry that we would have had, had these people been in employment. No doubt there will be an outcry after this legislation is passed, which I fear it will be because it is part of the Budget measures. Nevertheless, it will be too late then and it will be one more case where this Government has cut into existing rights of citizens who have no opportunity to go before a tribunal and argue their case for themselves. This will be a fait accompli. Reference has been made on this side of the chamber to Defence Force personnel because they already undergo so many disadvantages during their employment years. I made it very clear in my speech last night that this is one more condition of service which is being diminished by Government, which we can ill afford as a nation. Morale is extremely important in the Services and the whole country will be poorer if it is reduced further. I do not want to speak at length on this measure, but let us not forget that we are talking about a 2 per cent cut in existing income. We are not talking about 2 per cent of a future rise but about current income which will be cut in October. That is the disgrace of this legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.09) —It is somewhat difficult for me always to vote on a second reading amendment-and such was the case with the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Bill 1986-because I have no input in the formulation of proposals put forward by the Opposition. I did not vote for the second reading amendment by the Opposition because I perceived that it was not entirely correct in that it said in paragraph (a): expresses its concern that the level of discounting of superannuation . . . pensions imposed by the legislation has not yet been proposed in a National Wage Case, let alone given effect by a decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission . . . The fact is that discounting in national wage cases is not unusual at all. I will just give an example: From memory, in the five cases up until the January 1981 case discounting did occur and it occurred due to the oil parity pricing policy of the then Government. So discounting is not unfamiliar to workers of this country. Reasons have been given for discounting other than the ones given in the recent case. However, I voted against the Bill not because I believe that superannuitants should not bear an equitable share of the burden of the crisis in our economy but because I am not sure whether this is the best way of achieving that equitable result. Let me explain why I feel that way. If the attempt is to provide a basis for equitable treatment between workers and retired workers, consideration must be given to all factors relating to the wages of the workers. If those wages are to be discounted, there is a basis for retired workers to apply the same sort of self-discipline that is applied to workers. However, if that is to be applied, if there is a productivity increase in future, how will that be reflected in the amounts of superannuation paid to retired workers? Workers are entitled to make claims not only for productivity but also on work value grounds. Just as an example, if a superannuitant retires from the Commonwealth Public Service as a class 5 and that class 5 position receives a substantial increase as a result of a work value case, is it then a matter for the Government to consider whether that increase should be reflected in some way in the amount of money that is paid to the retired class 5 worker? These are the sorts of considerations which come to mind. The other aspect is that I notice that the Government, probably wisely, does not present this as a permanent issue. As I understand it, it is only a one-off thing. It may occur next year, but it is a one-off at present. In case the Government is considering it as a permanent arrangement, it would be worth while bearing in mind that the total wage aspect of the decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission may not be with us for very much longer. In fact, there is a growing body of opinion among unions that we ought to go back to the old basic wage and margins concept. That would enable the Commission to apply cost of living adjustments more equitably among the work force because they would be applied to the basic wage content. So, if a percentage increase were granted we would not have a situation where the tall poppies got an increase of $80 a week and the lower paid workers got an increase of only $8 a week. I very strenuously oppose the total wage concept. The basic wage and margins concept enables workers in a skilled area to apply for work value assessments. It also enables workers in unskilled areas to apply for work assessments on the basis not only of their value but also of the conditions under which they are performed. It may well be that simply by concentrating only, as we do in this Bill, on the discount aspect of a national wage decision we may not be taking into consideration all the factors which should be taken into consideration if there is to be an equitable sharing of the burden between workers and retired workers. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(11.17) —I ought to have a side swipe at Senator Michael Baume, who made some quite ridiculous assertions. He was valiantly trying to clothe the nakedness of the Liberal Party in this matter without any degree of success. I do not agree with my colleague Senator Macklin that Senator Baume is so inexperienced and silly as not to know the difference between Supply and other things; I believe he is simply putting on this little act here. I say to Senator Baume that it does not work. I am surprised that the honourable senator should even try it. The Opposition has conspired with the Government to pass this Bill. That is the fact of the matter. It is no good weeping crocodile tears over it afterwards. Senator Walsh in all his tirades said one thing about members of the Liberal Party that was true. He said that they were gutless. They are gutless. They are gutless because this is a measure which they know perfectly well-I said this in my speech on the second reading yesterday-is opening the door and giving the Government the opportunity to discount all pensions in future, including the age pension. Senator Baume should note that the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) did not answer that point in his reply on the second reading debate. The people of this country ought to note that the Minister did not reply to it. I put it out there and put it in front of him deliberately to get his response and he has not given it. I say again now that the Government must have in mind that it will be a very convenient exercise to discount all pensions in this way. As we all know, age pensions at present are adjusted to the consumer price index. It would be nice for the Government if it could say: `The situation is really rough now. Every aged pensioner, every pensioner in this country is going to have his pension discounted'. What would that do? For all I know, Senator Walsh might even get up in this Committee stage, as I invite him to do, and address that point because there are some pretty wide gaps in his reply. I think he ought to answer that point specifically and give an undertaking that the Government will not do that under any circumstances. If he cannot give that undertaking, the people of this country ought to know what to expect. It is in that context that members of the Opposition are conniving to pass this measure. I think it is despicable and thoroughly gutless of them to do it. They are here as senators; they are not being run by those in the House of Representatives. They are senators in this place. Combined with the Australian Democrats, they constitute the majority in this chamber. As a majority in this chamber we have certain responsibilities not to pass legislation which we believe bears unfairly, unjustly or unreasonably on the people of this country. In debate it has become absolutely clear that the Opposition agrees with the Democrats. That is the case, yet Opposition members hide behind this slim pretext that because it is a budgetary measure they cannot vote against it. The Opposition has opposed the assets test, the capital gains tax and all these things. They were big bickies compared with this one. The Opposition opposed those measures but comes along to this tiny little thing which, as I say, nevertheless represents a notable injustice and at the same time creates a tremendous-- Senator Michael Baume —That was not a Budget matter at all. It was the 19 September statement. Get your facts right. Senator MASON —Come on, the honourable senator is splitting hairs. It was a budgetary matter, a matter of finance-- Opposition senators-Ha, ha! Senator MASON —That is what I said; look at the Hansard, Senator Baume. It was a financial matter of significance. Senator Michael Baume voted against it and he says that he will repeal it. Where is his logic? Senator Michael Baume —Let us hear from you again when you have sorted yourself out. Senator MASON —All I can say to the honourable senator now is that he ought to have some quick consultations with the people over on the other side of the building, the green end. Then, if he gets a motion up to oppose the third reading of this Bill we will support him. Let us put this disgraceful measure where it should be-right out of court. Even the Minister has invited the Opposition to oppose this measure. It is rather interesting that the Minister should call for the defeat of his own Bill. I do not think that I have ever heard that happen in this place before and I find it interesting. Meanwhile, I address my comments to Senator Walsh. I ask him: What comments does he have to make on those sections of my speech in the second reading debate in which I said that the Government is creating, with the passage of this Bill-if it passes-a precedent which will allow it to discount all other pensions. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Walsh) read a third time. Senator SIDDONS(Victoria) —by leave-I wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday, during debate on the Loans Bill 1986, and again today, Senator Walsh made an unsubstantiated statement. I quote this statement: Talking of mental retards and mental misfits, I think Senator Siddons is a prime example. He then went on to say: . . . that was the description applied to Senator Siddons by one of his colleagues. I ask the honourable senator to name the colleague to whom he attributes this statement and to make that statement both inside and outside the House rather than hide, in a craven and cowardly manner, behind the privileges of this place and abuse those privileges. Debate resumed. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.24) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, which we are about to debate, implements the changes to the present health legislation which have been made necessary by the Government's Budget measures. There are to be amendments to the Health Insurance Act, the National Health Act and the Therapeutic Goods Act, as well as minor amendments to a number of other Acts. The main amendments which the Government is implementing are in complete opposition to repeated assurances and, indeed, commitments that the Government has given the people of Australia. Without doubt they will impose further burdens on families already badly hit by this Government. These families have been asked to tighten their belts but they just cannot go any further with the burdens that this Government has placed upon them. Let me remind the Senate of the glories of the new health system. Let us remember when Medicare first came in. We were told that we would pay one per cent of our taxable income as a levy, which was never to be increased, of course. In return, the Government would give us free hospital care and the services of the doctor on duty. Medicare would pay 85 per cent of the doctor's schedule fee. Not only that, but we would never have to pay more than a $10 gap for medical services as long as our doctor charged the schedule fee. Again, the maximum contribution for our pharmaceutical benefits would be $5 or, if one was entitled to the concessional benefit, $2. It was wonderful stuff. Those who were privately insured were told that, while they could not insure for medical fees or the gap for a medical visit, they could insure for the doctor of their choice in a private hospital and the Government would help pay the bill for that hospital and give them a bed day subsidy which would be paid directly to the hospital. After all, that was only fair because a part of that levy that they were paying was for the so-called free public hospital service, and if one did not use a public hospital the Government would help with the private hospital bill. How times have changed. When the new scheme came into being the Opposition warned the Government that the legislation was too open-ended. We knew that the system would slowly and surely send the Government broke. Well, we were partly wrong. It has not been slow. Very rapidly and surely the Government is going broke. We all remember well those first wonderful promises that Dr Blewett made. As I have said, he promised that the one per cent levy collected by the Government would cover Medicare and would not be increased under any circumstances. We also remember well the Minister's promise that the levy amount would be shown separately on everyone's pay slip to allow us to know just how much our health care was costing us. We were all told as well that there would be a ceiling on that levy so that we would not be forced to pay an unjust amount. We remember the Prime Minister's letter which said that health care would be cheaper for everyone. What has happened to all those promises? The promise that the one per cent levy amount would be shown separately on the pay slip never got off the ground. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was advised that that was an error and that it would be a continual reminder to the taxpayer of how he was being slugged under the wonderful new system. So that promise was broken before it had even started. The next promise to go was the one that said that the levy would cover the cost of Medicare. That promise blew out in the first year; Medicare has been funded by Consolidated Revenue for years now. The next promise to go was the one that said that there would be a ceiling on the levy-a ceiling that would stop unjust health tax being collected by the Government. That was lost last Budget without so much as a bat of an eyelid. I believe that injustice was always intended and that talk of a just scheme was only rhetoric. Now, finally, the promise that the one per cent levy would remain, that there would be no increase, has also bitten the dust. That levy was increased by 25 per cent in the Budget. It was only a few months ago that Dr Blewett assured the Opposition that we were only being mischievous by suggesting that that one per cent levy would be increased. What about the $10 maximum gap payment for medical services? In the Budget that has been doubled to $20. The $5 maximum for pharmaceutical benefits has also been doubled to $10. The $2 maximum for concessional pharmaceuticals has been increased to $2.50. In the pharmaceutical benefits scheme for pensioners, prescriptions have been considerably limited. Many of the most common drugs have been removed from it. From 1 November war widows and their dependants will no longer be allowed free prescriptions through the repatriation scheme; free prescriptions will be allowed only through the pensioner pharmaceutical benefits scheme. This will limit the drugs which are available to them. The Minister assures us that there will be a safety net whereby no individual or family will have to pay for more than 25 prescriptions in any one year. After that number, he tells us, all prescriptions will be free. I wonder how long that promise will last. After all, one has to be pretty sick to have 25 prescriptions a year. I hope the Minister is not laying himself open to yet another area in which there could be abuse by fiddling the numbers. He tells us that he will monitor that, but I wonder how long that pro-mise will last. Why have these changes been necessary? How will they affect the Australian population? The Treasurer (Mr Keating) assures us that the Go-vernment has created times so tough that Australia is in danger of becoming a banana republic. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) tells us that he has created a crisis so bad that ours is like a country at war. We all have to pull in our belts, he tells us. Mr Keating tells us that, because Australia is becoming a banana republic, he will grab back from the taxpayer $29m in a full year in increased payments for Medicare services and $143m in the abolition of the patient subsidy to private hospitals. He tells us that the taxpayers will have to pay an additional $67m for changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, as well as various other small amounts for deregulating private hospitals. The truth is that these cuts were always going to happen. How often have honourable senators heard me and my colleagues in this place tell the Government that this had to happen, that Medicare would send it broke? How often have we told the Government that the cost of the care is out of control? We have said it everywhere; we have said it repeatedly. We have asked questions in Estimates committee hearings hundreds of times. Hundreds of times it has been debated in this place. We keep telling the Go-vernment that it will at least have to stop the bulk billing for everyone, that it will have to limit that bulk billing to pensioners and others on low incomes, or it will send us broke. I pointed out to Senator Grimes last time that Professor Penington had called on the Government to take this action. I pointed out that Professor Penington-one would hardly say that he is politically motivated-had said that the health care costs were out of control. We have pleaded with the Government. The Government has turned a blind eye-blinded, of course, by its ideology-and it has refused to listen. It will have to listen eventually because the economy is so bad. Instead, the Government has stuck to its ideology; it has stuck to wanting to socialise health care. Once the doctors are fully bulk billing they will have been socialised. The Government has responded to the crisis in health care costs by limiting to the public hospitals funds that are needed to cover the enormous increase in the usage that the introduction of the levy has created. Not many people can afford to pay the levy as well as private insurance, so there has been a large flow out of the private system into the public system. The queues at the public hospitals have got longer and longer. I have spoken about these queues so often that I am sure the Minister must be sick to death of hearing them, but I will repeat the figures because constant dripping may wear away the hardest stone and he has to take action eventually. The latest available figures are: For Victoria, 27,750; for South Australia, 4,200; and for Tasmania, 4,300. For just those three States, the total is 36,250. The other States do not like to keep those figures. As I said in the debate on this matter in the Senate last time, of the 27,000-odd in Victoria, 6,299 patients are waiting for orthopaedic surgery and about 1,500 children are waiting for beds at the Royal Children's Hospital. I said: What a shemozzle. What a dreadful situation. Let us look at New South Wales. Even though the New South Wales Government does not supply figures-one must ask why-the estimates are that the situation is very similar. There are about 30,000 people on the waiting lists in New South Wales. Those requiring orthopaedic surgery have to wait 24 months for their hip replacements. Children requiring admittance to hospital have to wait up to nine months. As I said, in my State, 4,300 people are waiting for private hospital beds. What will these new changes do to those queues? It is very obvious that the queues will continue to grow. Because of the abolition of the patient subsidy to private hospitals, the health insurance industry will be forced to raise contribution rates. That additional cost, plus the extra 25 per cent levy, will signal the death knell for many individuals and many families that are now struggling to maintain their private health insurance. Once this happens they will be added to the queues at the public hospitals. Is this really what the Government wants? Will it go to that extent to socialise medicine? I guess it will. Dr Blewett, in his second reading speech, said that the increase to the private hospital insurance will be minimal. With the insurance funds having to make up $20, $30 or $40 a day, depending on the classification of the hospital, for their insured patients, there is no doubt that the contribution rates will have to increase. The injustice of this is enormous, when one realises that from now on everyone who privately insures gets absolutely nothing back from that part of the levy which covers public hospital accommodation that they will not be using. What excuse can the Government possibly have for such unjust legislation? It is socialist ideology. Since the introduction of Medicare the health system has been in a thorough mess. Nurses have gone on strike for the first time; patients cannot get into hospitals; doctors have resigned en masse; and confidentiality of medical records has been violated. Our Medicare cards were accompanied by a letter from the Prime Minister congratulating us-remember that letter-for becoming members of the most wonderful health scheme in the world. It is a bit reminiscent, is it not, of the title of the best Treasurer in the world? That wonderful Treasurer, Mr Keating, has presided over the downgrading of the Australian credit rating to second grade, just as the Prime Minister has presided over the downgrading to second rate of the so-called best health scheme in the world. It has lost its rating along with Australia's credit rating. It is a second class scheme that denies to the ordinary Australian access to public hospitals, because there are long waiting lists, and increases the cost for private hospital insurers by putting such insurance beyond their reach. Thus, the ordinary Australian has no recourse but to enter the queues of the public hospitals. On behalf of the Opposition, I move: At end of motion, add: `, but the Senate- (a) condemns the Government for its latest attack on the private sector by increasing the cost of private hospital insurance, putting it beyond the reach of many ordinary Australians and thereby condemning them to long public hospital queues when they need hospital care; (b) condemns the Government for its total failure to address the mounting public hospital crisis and the growing number of people on queues for public hospital beds; (c) notes that under Medicare there are long queues for public hospital beds while there are empty private hospital beds; (d) expresses its grave concern for the people reliant on private hospital care, such as is provided by the Victorian Bush Nursing Association; and (e) calls on the Government to make fundamental changes to Medicare to allow people the choice of Medicare cover, thereby restoring the balance of demand for hospital beds. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.40) —We are debating the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986 and the amendment just moved by Senator Walters. I wish to refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to the Bill. In report No. 13 of 1986, the Committee states that the purpose of the Bill is to: (a) increase the maximum gap payment between the Medicare rebate and the schedule of fees from $10 to $20; and (b) provide for the deregulation of Commonwealth controls over private hospitals and the abolition of bed day payments to private hospitals. I shall return to the implications of that deregulation. The report states also that the Bill seeks to amend the National Health Act 1953 to abolish the present isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme and provide new arrangements under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I want to refer specifically to that part of the report that deals with clauses 41 and 42 which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee heads as `ill defined administrative powers'. The Committee's report should be looked at by the Government. I hope that, in Committee, the Government will explain those clauses. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee report states: Clauses 41 and 42 insert new sections . . . the Committee numbers them- The new sections provide that the Secretary to the Department of Health `may', by notice in writing, require a manufacturing corporation to give notice in writing to the Secretary of each batch of a biological product produced or to be produced in Australia by the corporation and to furnish samples of such batches of biological products respectively. `Biological products' are goods for therapeutic use produced from organisms or the tissue or body fluids of organisms (including vaccines). Although the new sections are both cast in the form of a discretion conferred on the Secretary, neither sets out any criteria for the exercise of the power and no provision has been made for review of the exercise of the discretion by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This raises two questions. First, is it intended that all manufacturing corporations will be required to furnish information and samples in accordance with the new sections (in which case the new sections might be better cast in a form which does not leave the Secretary a discretion in making requirements)? Secondly, if it is intended that some, but not all, manufacturing corporations will be required to furnish information and samples, on what basis is this discretion to be exercised? The latter question could be of importance in two ways. A corporation which is required to furnish information and samples may consider the requirement onerous and may be justifiably dismayed if it discovers that similar requirements are not being imposed on its competitors. Equally, a consumer group which discovers that a particular corporation is not being required to furnish samples of its biological products to the Secretary for testing may consider that the Department of Health is shirking its responsibilities. In either case, in the absence of provision for the review of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or criteria for the exercise of the discretion it would be difficult to challenge the Secretary's use of the power conferred by the two new sections. Accordingly the Committee draws clauses 41 and 42 to the attention of Senators . . . Honourable senators should draw the report to the Government's attention and ask for an explanation of clauses 41 and 42 in order to eliminate what can obviously be gross abuses of these provisions in a number of specific ways which are revealed by the Committee. All the Committee's reports are serious. This serious matter deserves to be addressed in the context of this debate on the amendments proposed by the Bill. We are entitled to hear about that. I want to refer to the implications of the legislation for users of health care, referring specifically to the position in the Australian Capital Territory. That is not a parochial thing to do, because I rely on an answer which I received on 16 April 1986 from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) following my question on health care. I was told that health services were in a state of crisis and that the Australian Capital Territory was no different from the rest of Australia. It is worth looking at the history of what we have suffered under Medicare. The position will only worsen with the passing of this Bill. People will have to pay more for medical attention-an increase from $10 to $20 for a visit to their doctor. The private health subsidy is to be cut out. If people provide their own private health care cover, that means that, with the subsidy, the Government gets the cheapest possible hospital bed available. For some reason, the Government is intent on increasing the levy and gathering more unto itself to spend on the taxpayers' behalf. The Government is paying out less in the pharmaceutical area and paying out less for private hospital beds-gathering more and providing less. The Medicare idea of universal care is a myth. It might seem to be universal care but it is not for someone who is sick and really needs help. If one is healthy, perhaps it is, but then it does not matter. Last year, the Sax report on Australian Capital Territory health services was presented. It stated: Both hospitals are said by resident medical officers to have insufficient nurses in real terms of skill mix to the extent that even basic nursing observations were being omitted . . . There are insufficient trained staff to handle more than one complicated delivery with foetal distress at any one time . . . The obstetricians at this hospital are concerned about litigation arising out of unsafe care due to inadequate numbers of nurses . . . The report referred also to nurses' work loads and the inadequate level of skilled nursing staff in some areas. To review the situation, there have been problems with insufficient operating theatres available to be used when needed. Doctors have been working strange working cycles. Earlier this year, for a period, only one theatre was in service, which was used only for emergencies. There has been sufficient understaffing of pathology services to cause considerable and distressing delays in preparing reports for the Coroners Court and some delays in hospital services. For a time, no facilities were available to conduct EEGs. There has been an incredible number of union disputes and bans. Last year, there were two major linen disputes and the consequences in terms of surgery are still being felt. I could spend half an hour talking about what is not available in the Australian Capital Territory for those suffering from mental illnesses. There have been times when ward B at Woden Hospital has not been fully operational. Not all voluntary patients can be admitted. People have been released or transferred early and there has been a lack of qualified staff and hostel accommodation. We do not have in this Territory the sorts of facilities to deal with mental illness that exist in the States. I do not know what the Government intends to do, but the stories that one hears constantly are distressing and the people who need help and support are not getting it. As a consequence of the situation in regard to the operating theatres, the elective surgery lists, like those in the rest of Australia, have got longer and longer. Considerable personal hardships have been suffered by constituents in this electorate. At present 1,600 people are on the waiting list for surgery, which is quaintly called `elective surgery'. I think if most people were suffering the sorts of things that those on the list are suffering, they would have some difficulty being persuaded that the surgery was elective. But that is the word that seems to be used to cover such circumstances. Emergency cases are just about the only ones that really get into a hospital in this Territory. I would like to drawn attention to some of the specific problems that have come to my notice. One concerns the recent case of a patient aged 68 whose doctor had been trying for eight days to get her into hospital. He finally sent her to hospital in an ambulance and she died in the casualty section. The doctor felt at the time that although her condition needed monitoring, there was no apparent emergency, and there was nothing to suggest that that was the case. The patient had had to be kept home and monitored during the period he had not been able to get her into hospital. We have had difficulty getting a wheelchair for at least one spina bifida child. This matter has gone on and on. Constant requests for assistance have had to be made to the hospital and the Minister's office. I think we all remember the most distressing photograph on the front page of the Canberra Times earlier this year of a young boy whose surgery had to be put off, although it was very clear that he needed attention most urgently, because there were not enough beds available at the time. There have been difficulties in the community nursing area. Nurses have had to close their books and not take in more patients for a time. I know of one case where a general practitioner, who was not able to get assistance for a patient of his, had to visit the patient twice a day to fill the role that a community nurse would have filled had there been sufficient nurses to maintain the load and the demand. The story is well known as far as the elderly in Canberra are concerned. The Minister announced the other day that another 200 beds would be provided over the next three years, 180 of which would be hostel beds. No doubt these beds will be of great value. However, only 20 of the new beds are to be nursing home beds. I really think the Minister has been ill-advised in terms of the needs of the frail aged in the Australian Capital Territory. At present 240 people are classified as being in need of nursing home beds in the Australian Capital Territory. It is taking 12 months or thereabouts-and sometimes longer-to get into a nursing home bed. Many families have had to send their aged and frail relatives out of the Australian Capital Territory to parts of New South Wales to get them the sort of care they need. That is particularly distressing for the family which has to make the decision and, of course, for elderly people who have to be sent away so far from their relatives. Many people in our hospital beds come from interstate. I think the Government is completely overlooking the fact that people from areas surrounding the Australian Capital Territory use our hospitals. Of course, it is appropriate that that should be the case because we have large hospitals which are capable of fulfilling that need. However, it seems most unreasonable that the frail aged, who are the ones least able to help themselves, should be put in a position where they are not able to get the assistance they need and should have to wait for such a long time for that assistance. We had a case just recently of an 86-year old man who had broken his dentures. Normally a pensioner would go to a hospital and have his dentures repaired. This elderly man's daughter attempted to get him an appointment for this purpose. Although the man broke his dentures in July, he was given an appointment for October. His daughter was particularly distressed as she felt that this would have a serious effect upon her father. Because she has a handicapped husband she was not in a position to buy or arrange for a new denture. However, after some phone calls he was fitted in earlier, I think the system is very poor when one has to go to a local member to get a denture fixed. Other parliamentary representatives in the Australian Capital Territory can recount similar stories. Frequently, the only way of getting action in the health system at present is to go to one's local member. I resent the fact that that is the best that we can provide in this country when so much money is being spent on health care. We have a socialised medical scheme which provides universal health care. On the one hand Dr Edelsten is making so much money out of the bulk billing system and on the other hand my constituents are not able to get the service to which they are entitled. I refer to an incident that occurred earlier this year concerning an elderly woman who had collapsed and badly cut herself and was almost choking on her own vomit. She was taken to casualty by her daughter and although she could not walk at the time she was told if she wanted a trolley she would have to wait. After seven hours, this elderly woman was admitted to hospital. The daughter wrote to me: One did not need tests or instruments, only eyes to know that she was a very sick person. But it took five collapses, vomiting after each, shock and fear, to convince the doctor that she should be admitted for treatment. The daughter stated further in her letter: This is not an isolated case. My sister experienced a similar ordeal when her father-in-law was taken to the hospital after a massive stroke. It took five hours to admit him and he died 48 hours later. We have had instances in recent times of the Meals on Wheels organisation not being able to be supplied with food because of union action in the hospital kitchens which supply the food. One can imagine how distressing that is for the people who depend on Meals on Wheels for their survival. We hear about home care, and all of us would want people to be able to stay in their own homes and in their own accommodation for as long as they are able to, provided that care is available to them. But when such a thing can happen to Meals on Wheels, which delivers voluntarily, I do not think that we are providing a very good service at all. I was involved in a matter concerning a man who had a shunt in his brain and was finally operated on earlier this year after having been on a waiting list for nearly 12 months. This man had been on medication to deal with the pain that he was suffering as a result of having to wait for the operation. Every time he just about got to the surgery-in one case he was actually at the hospital-strike action closed the theatres for a period and he then had to go back to waiting. As I said, it was just on 12 months from when he was told that the shunt should be replaced before the operation was finally carried out. We have had problems in the area of podiatry, especially for a diabetic and arthritis sufferer who particularly needs care for her feet. These are only a few of the instances. I have two bundles of letters, statements and newspaper cuttings relating to the problems from which people in the Australian Capital Territory have been suffering as a result of the health system and Medicare-as a result of the universal care which provides very little for those who need it but costs a great deal for those who are paying. Now, because the subsidy for private hospital beds has been withdrawn, more people will join the queues of those waiting for assistance at private hospitals. Because of the additional cost of the levy and because of the other expenses that will arise as a result of this Bill, fewer people will be able to care and provide for themselves as they have done in the past. We are moving totally in the wrong direction. We should be seeing that this country provides health care in such a way that people can get it when they need it at a cost which is reasonable. We should not have a situation in which people are being driven on to the public hospital lists. There are many people who ought to be able and who want to be able to have private cover and, if they need it, to be able to go to a private hospital. The $30 a day charge was not too much to pay towards that. As I have said, that represented the cheapest hospital bed that a government could find. This measure will mean that fewer people will be able to pay the increased levy and what must inevitably be an increase in the voluntary insurance payments. More people will be waiting at the hospitals. The lists will be longer and those who have to be on those lists will be pushed further and further back and will have to wait longer. If that is the sort of health care socialism provides, it is time it was abandoned and we got back to a system that enables those who need health care to get it. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(12.01) —After that scrambled pot-pourri from Senator Walters and Senator Reid, it is a little difficult to know how to address all the nonsense they have put up. Some of the complaints they have listed are quite legitimate. We thank Senator Reid for a wander through the local electorate, but it is hardly the substance of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). Any one of us can pick problem areas in any number of portfolios, but it is ludicrous then to sheet home to the Government responsibility for all those areas. By the way, I wish to make it clear to Senator Reid that I am happy to follow her in this debate and I am sorry that she was discommoded by the fact that she changed her mind about where she appeared on the speakers list. That is her problem, not mine. Senator Reid —I wish to take a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. I beg the honourable senator's pardon. I have not changed my mind about the speakers list. I was listed to follow Senator Crowley and that is where I intended to speak. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that I am responsible for a change in the speakers list. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —There is no point of order. Senator Grimes —Peace! Senator CROWLEY —Senator Grimes should urge peace on them because they will not cop it from me. No, no, I am not feeling peaceful. I feel somewhat provoked. In fact, I feel amazed at what Senator Reid finished up with. She implied that all the problems and ills that lie around this country, with people who cannot get access to beds in hospitals and so on, are the fault of this Government. That is utter nonsense. Under the Fraser Government, more than two million people in this country were not insured and had no access to financial help for their health care. That is the situation the Opposition would like us to return to-a situation in which people do not know where to turn for financial security or access to medical care. The Opposition wants a two-tiered scheme. It wants the poor people to have no financial coverage. This Government has introduced a scheme that is universal. It has dealt with all those sorts of problems and it has ensured that nobody is denied access to adequate and comprehensive medical care in this country. Senator Reid —But they cannot get it. Senator CROWLEY —I find it quite interesting that Senator Reid suggests that there are waiting lists. We know that there are waiting lists. Ever since I started medical practice there have been waiting lists. I studied medicine quite a few years ago and there were waiting lists then. They are not new and they are not the fault of Medicare. There is no doubt that there are waiting lists and that there are problems. They are associated largely with the administration of public hospitals in the State arena. I acknowledge, as does the Government, that private insurance arrangements encourage people to use the public hospital system which leads to increased use of the public hospital facilities. Another reason why people use public hospital facilities is that they offer comprehensively good medical care. Of course people choose public hospitals. They are not places where people go because they are poor and wretched. They are places where one receives excellent medical care, where people train as medical students, as were Senator Walters's husband and I, and where, if one is crook, one prefers to go. There is a different categorisation of medical provisions in other than large public hospitals. Waiting lists are a problem; we acknowledge that. They are not as large as Senator Walters has said, and the figures she introduced were about as murky as the ones that were fed to members of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare during its inquiry into private hospitals and nursing homes. People are listed in a number of places. Senator Walters —You cannot even get into them. Senator CROWLEY —We know that there are long waiting lists. How much does Senator Walters think that that is due to these changes in the Medicare legislation? She wants to furphy people. She wants to confuse the issue. She does not want to address the root cause of the problem. She has also failed to address any of the pluses in this legislation that I would have thought she would be pleased to support. That may be beyond her. The other contradiction contained in Senator Reid's contribution goes to her complaint, do you mind, that the Government is actually drawing in revenue but not spending it on people. That remark comes from a member of an Opposition that talks about the user pays principle and about privatising everything. The minute any changes even move that way, in the very progressive way that this Government is moving in a time of economic restraint, bleats come from the Opposition side that it is a terrible thing to happen. They say: `My God! Just what we say we want to happen is happening but we do not like it'. Honourable senators opposite should sort out which way they want to go. Their attitude seems very contradictory. If I were out in the community, I would be terribly confused after listening to what members of the Opposition have to say. Would they privatise the health area? Let us hear from them on that. We know that they intend to abolish Medicare. That should be very encouraging for most of the people earning below $15,000 a year, the pensioners and beneficiaries, all of whom presently are guaranteed health care without any worries at all. Above that, this Government acknowledges the option for people to choose to buy into private health insurance. The arrangements under this legislation and the figures done by the Government and the Department suggest that the increase in private insurance payments would probably be up to $1 a week, but that is not necessarily so. As I understand it, Medibank Private estimates that it will raise its fees by 50c a week. So we are not talking about huge increases that will massively disenfranchise people. Senator Reid made a point about criticism from the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. As a member of that Committee, I am aware of that critique. I certainly made the comment in the Committee that I thought people perhaps were looking at this legislation without an appreciation of what the clauses in the Bill really address. For the edification of Senator Reid, under current legislation the Therapeutic Goods Act already enables the Secretary to the Department of Health to require the production of information and samples about production of biologicals. However, it became clear to the Government that that information the Secretary currently can retain does not allow for specific information about a batch release of biologicals. In other words, for example, the Secretary has the power to seek information about flu vaccines but not about a specific batch of flu vaccines. This legislation amends that provision so as to enable the Secretary, or in other words the Government, to have access to the information about batches rather than a whole type of biologicals. If Senator Reid is very concerned about that, she should be comforted by the other amendment in the legislation that enables the decisions taken by the Secretary to be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Clause 46 of the Bill specifically extends the jurisdiction of the AAT to review this area. So the area of doubt raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has been addressed by the Government in this legislation. I will be surprised if, when the Scrutiny of Bills Committee receives the response from the Government, it does not find it acceptable. It is a problem when it is not understood how legislation will apply in a particular area, as in this case with the batch release system of biologicals. Senator Reid does not have too much to fuss about in that area. Senator Walters made many comments along fairly recognisable and usual lines. She suggested that the Government was leading us all to rack and ruin and she mentioned the maintenance of bulk billing and so on. The Government is unashamed about maintaining bulk billing. This is for a number of reasons-partly because it goes to the heart of Medicare and partly because it is an option that doctors can exercise. Of course, it may be of some scandal to Senator Walters to discover that some doctors do decide to bulk bill. They are not coerced into doing it. Senator Walters —Just like Edelsten, and you would support that entirely. Senator CROWLEY —Senator Walters is an unmitigated disgrace. If ever once again she presumes to speak for me in this chamber, I will stand up every time and say: `I will speak for myself. Please do not impute motives to me'. I have said on other occasions that those systems are open to abuse and I do not presume that the way of Dr Edelsten is necessarily the way of the future. But this debate is not about Dr Edelsten. This debate is about maintaining bulk billing. At the moment about 52 per cent of all medical services under Medicare have been directly billed. The vast majority of those have been for services to pensioners and disadvantaged people. That is what the Government is very serious about in the Medicare legislation and in these amendments. We intend to maintain that coverage and provisions for the people who are least able to pay for their health care, to ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged by that. If there are some less than honourable doctors, that is nothing new to me, it ought to be nothing new to Senator Walters and it is not the way of funding a system for providing health care. I have said before that it is a shame that the medical profession, of which I am a member and of which I am very proud, is charged and abused by Senator Walters in a way which is quite disgraceful. The other changes in the Government's legislation will also maintain that progressive stance that underwrites the Medicare legislation. If Senator Walters wants to call that part of this democratic socialist Government's policy, she has got it right; that is precisely what this Government is about. It is about charging the cost progressively to people. For Senator Walters's edification, not only are the changes progressive but also the introduction of the 1.25 per cent levy-the increase required under times of hard economics-will have a phase-in period. The levels at which the levy begins to be paid have been increased. Where previously the level at which the levy started to be paid by a single person was $7,526, that has now been lifted to $8,030. For a couple, where previously the figure was $12,504, it has been lifted to $13,370. For each child, where previously the figure was $1,530, it is now $1,660. So not only have the base levels been lifted but also the phase-in period has been maintained. People will not have to pay their levies suddenly, because the Government recognises the complications that can cause, so it will be phased in. If Senator Walters looks at those figures, she should realise that the people at the lower end of income earning scales and those who are dependent on pensions and benefits are covered beautifully, as the Medicare legislation intended in the first place and as it maintains now. Senator Reid's amendment to this legislation referred to other areas that the Opposition has not spoken about, which I find a bit surprising. I would have thought we would have heard some support from the Opposition for the changes to the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme-IPTAAS. The Federal Government recognises that having the Commonwealth manage that scheme is inefficient and administratively cumbersome, particularly because the isolated patients by and large are living not in Canberra but in outlying areas of the States and they are seeking assistance and care in the States. It is quite appropriate and proper, and far more administratively streamlined, for the States to manage that scheme. In passing the isolated patients travel and accommodation assistance scheme to the States, the Government has increased the funding by 23 per cent to assist with the passage and to recognise that its contribution is best in terms of financial assistance. The administration of the scheme will be much better done by those people in the States who know the requirements and are more appreciative of the travel demands and so on. That is one point which needs to be acknowledged and supported. This legislation is important also for the changes it makes to the pharmaceutical benefits. The increase in the cost of prescriptions from $5 to $10, with an average prescription cost of about $7.30, will largely be a charge against people who are well and who do not pay for many prescriptions in each year. Not only is this Government distributing from the better off to the poorer off, but also in this way it is distributing from the healthier to the sicker people. People can bear very considerable costs if they have a chronic illness, or because of the stages of their life cycle. For example, families with young children may need a quite considerable number of prescriptions in a year. The Government, recognising that, has built a safety net in to the increased charges per prescription, so that after 25 prescriptions have been filled subsequent prescriptions will be filled at no charge. People who are currently entitled to free prescriptions will have that situation maintained and the pensioners' health card fee will go from $2 to $2.50. Essentially, the Government recognises that the principal problems with pharmaceutical benefits charges are suffered by people with chronic illness. It has recognised this by building in a safety net, so that after 25 prescriptions further medication for the year will be free, but those of us who may seek an appointment with a doctor and may require a prescription only once or twice in the year will be asked to pay a little more. I would have thought that most of us in the community would recognise that as manageable. As ever under health legislation, it is important to note that, where difficulties have to be addressed, the Government-I particularly commend Minister Blewett-has been at pains to see that the cost falls progressively and fairly and falls least on those in our community who are least able to pay. There are many other changes in this legislation, one of which addresses the changes to non-sexist language in the legislation; a requirement when legislation is amended. I am certainly one of the people who is appreciative of that. Another important area which needs some comment, apart from the lesser changes in the legislation, is the change to the hospital subsidies. One thing which needs to be realised is that, with the changes, the Government has recognised that historically a number of private charitable or religious hospitals have undertaken hospital care for needy, uninsured patients. The Government recognises the importance of that care and that contribution, so specific purpose lump sum grants will be provided to eligible hospitals to cover those costs which otherwise might have been lost under the changes in this area. As ever, the changes in the health area are thoughtful and progressive. They go very much to the heart of the legislation which was initially introduced as part of the first Hawke Labor Government program. They maintain the principles of progressivity, ensuring that nobody in this country is without medical cover or is disadvantaged from seeking medical care by the costs that might apply to them. The Federal Government is acutely aware of the problems of waiting lists in hospitals and is doing what it can to address that problem. Certainly it is something that has addressed the mind of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), and changes in previous legislation have addressed that problem. For example, there has been an acknowledgment from the beginning that there should be a public system and a private system. This Government is quite aware of the value and contribution of private insurance. Previous changes recognised that privately insured people were being treated in public hospitals and arrangements were made to address that. The problems of public hospital management cannot all be sheeted home to Medicare. If Senator Walters goes around saying that that is not the case, she is just furphying, if not mischievously misleading people. The problems of hospital waiting lists are not new. There are a number of reasons for the demands on public hospitals. One of the reasons is that that is where the excellent quality medical care and medical treatment happens in this country. It is also where the community has preferred to put its highly expensive and high technology medicine. We do not want CAT scanners or huge intensive care units for the maintenance of people with cardiac problems in all sorts of private hospitals. The community has recognised, by way of responsible management of health costs, that large public hospitals are the places where some of that more expensive and high technology medicine should be, so that also contributes to the demands made on the services of public hospitals. We need to appreciate the very complex series of things which contribute to increased waiting lists in hospitals. For example, there are waiting lists for people needing hip replacements when not too many years ago artificial hips were not even known of. Developments in medicine also contribute to possibilities in surgical and medical treatment that were not previously known. Invariably waiting lists tend to happen in the initial stages when research and experimentation are part of the work, and these sorts of things will happen in public hospitals. That is another drain on the services and provisions of a public hospital scheme. I wish that Opposition members would appreciate the complexities and would be honourable and honest in the way they deal with them. I do not expect that to be the case. I commend the Government on the Bill. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(12.21) —I am absolutely staggered that the public outcry from the people of Australia about the health care crisis has not penetrated the mind of the Government, particularly as that outcry comes from all sections of the community. It comes from doctors, patients, nurses, health administrators, ancillary health workers and so on. There is not one area in our health industry that is not unhappy and dissatisfied with the organisation of the administration of health in Australia today. Senator Crowley —You do not talk to the same people as I do. Senator SHEIL —That may be the case. The Senate is debating the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, which will amend three Acts of Parliament and make ancillary amendments to minor matters. It will amend the Health Insurance Act, the Therapeutic Goods Act and the National Health Act. The Government is doing par for the course in a nationalised health scheme and is following what has been done in other countries. The Government will increase costs, the amount of regulation and control, but it will decrease the amount of service. This has been expected over the years. Opposition members have been making speeches on these lines time and again, but the Government goes along in its merry ideological way with a Health Minister who seems determined to keep putting the country into a strait-jacket. This is despite the cost blow-outs in Medicare and in the hospital sphere. These massive blow-outs will keep increasing to the detriment of the country and particularly of the patients, because after all that is what this is all about. I do not see why Australia should be plunged into rigours of this sort when the runs are on the board, we can see what has happened in the past and can predict what will happen in the future. As to anything we do not know, we only have to look at what has happened in other countries to see what is in store for us in this country. If one looks at the present scene in Australia, one sees that thousands of public hospital beds have been closed down, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria. In Queensland we have been buffered by the presence of the free hospital scheme which has existed for 50 years. We have been able to maintain that scheme, despite the fact that this Government has held back on certain funds-Medicare funds, road funds and State grants-to Queensland. Queensland has been buffered because the Queensland Government has been able to maintain the free hospital system there, but other States are in dire straits. If the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) or any other Minister, or anybody, wants to look at the number of out-patients in any of the major hospitals in New South Wales, for example, he will see those hospitals are on a war footing. Why should that be the case in Australia? The talk about waiting lists is correct. Upwards of 100,000 people are now on those waiting lists. To say that they are on the waiting lists of different hospitals is ridiculous, because they are not. Perhaps patients have to put down their names for several nursing homes, but not for hospitals, particularly for elective surgery. Although there may have been waiting lists in the past, there have been nothing like the present waiting lists. One reason is the fact that a great squeeze has been placed on the private hospitals. If people cannot get into the private hospitals, it pushes them over to the public hospitals and increases the load there. That is exactly what is happening now. Private hospitals have been categorised, which has caused the closure of three hospitals. They are also becoming accredited, which costs a great deal of money and for which private hospitals have to foot the bill. They have been put under nonsensical bureaucratic and administrative pressure which has nothing to do with curing patients. Accreditation has been tried around the world, particularly in the United States of America. An excellent example was in the veterans' affairs administration there, but all it did was to increase costs and decrease the quality of service; yet it existed principally to give quality assurance and to ensure that the costs did not go over a certain level. It had exactly the opposite effect. In fact, it turned out to be a minimal standard scheme, and it has now been scrapped. However, we in Australia are taking this step and many public hospitals have gone in for accreditation. Some public hospitals have not been able to pass the tests and yet still operate. Their virtues have been extolled by Senator Crowley, who said they provide the best service; but I deny that. The public hospitals provide this service, but equally good service can be provided by private hospitals. Private hospitals, given a chance, are quite capable of handling complicated cases up to and including transplants. The fact that private hospitals in this country are precluded from having out-patients has restricted private hospital development for years. It is a ridiculous restriction. They should be allowed to have out-patients. The way in which ambulance transport is administered has restricted the development of private hospitals in Australia, particularly in traumatics. Private hospitals are not so good in traumatics because ambulances do not take trauma cases to private hospitals. That is simply because people are charged if they go to private hospitals, but not for admission to public hospitals. A public hospital cannot refuse a case and it is hard for an ambulance crew to pick up somebody who may be unconscious, bleeding, in pain and say `Hey, Charlie, it will cost you $20, $40 or $80 for us to take you to hospital', when they know they can take the patient to a public hospital which must accept the patient. Consequently this has stopped the development of traumatics in private hospitals. For years I ran a private hospital which had its own out-patients. I do not know how that was ever allowed, it must have existed historically, but we had a quite large traumatics department. I do not see why those restrictions should not be lifted to enable the private hospitals to develop. The more the private system is allowed to develop, the greater the load it will take off the public hospital sector. I have been horrified to hear stories of other senators about the effect on sick people because of delays in admission. These stories are not just anecdotal; I have heard them myself. There are anomalies with those countries with which Australia has reciprocal agreements. Let us take the case of Yugoslavia. Because operative surgery is often delayed in that country and the black market in medicine over there is very big, patients in that country who cannot afford to have a major operation on the black market-they are priced on to the black market because of time constraints-find it easier to fly to Australia, have the operation here under Medicare and then fly back. They are still not out of pocket. I have heard those sorts of stories. One hears stories about our rich America's Cup colony making use of Medicare here when they should be provided for under their own insurance schemes. Bulk billing, which has already been mentioned, is the cause of many of the problems in Australia today and much of the drug problem. I have heard stories that in Sydney any self-respecting dole bludger can go around at least 20 doctors in a day and get about 15 prescriptions for tranquilliser-type drugs. Then he can take those tablets up to Kings Cross, flog them for about $10 a tablet and use that money to finance his drug problem or habit. One can sheet that home to bulk billing because not only can such people get their prescriptions under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme but also the bulk billing means that they do not have to pay for their consultation at all. But the Government has to pay the doctor for those visits. As I mentioned before, the waiting lists are aggravated and generally the Medicare system is not one that will work in this country. We can take the example of Queensland over the years where there was a free hospital and out-patient system and a private system as well. About half the people wanted to go public and half private, and I am pretty sure that that is how it would work in Australia if we allowed public and private sectors to operate in harness. This would allow the Government to perform all the functions that it needs to perform-looking after pensioners and other beneficiaries, veterans affairs, workers compensation, medical education and areas of research. The whole system could work quite comfortably and happily if the private sector were not being strangled as it is today. This Bill alters the isolated patients travel assistance arrangements. We will just have to wait and see how that works. It means that the Government is transferring the function to the States. I notice that it is giving them a little more money than is provided for at the moment. Generally, I am in favour of that type of move-handing jobs back to the States. However, I do not know the detailed arrangements of this transfer. I support the amendment to the motion that has been moved by Senator Walters and point out once again that the Government is on the wrong track by just increasing controls, regulations and costs in all areas, or pretty well all areas, against the promises that it has made. It is a very frustrating feeling to know that one's country is going further down the drain because of these changes to the health Acts. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(12.34) —We have before us the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). This Bill seeks to make a number of significant changes to several facets of the way health care services are provided in Australia. The main features of this Bill are that it proposes to increase the maximum patient contribution, or Medicare gap, payable by individuals from $10 to $20; increase maximum patient contributions payable for pharmaceuticals from $5 to $10; abolish the Federal subsidy to private hospitals; abolish Federal regulatory controls over private hospitals; and abolish the isolated patients transport and accommodation assistance scheme. On the face of it, many of these changes appear to be retrograde steps to be taking in a country which supposedly provides services according to need ahead of ability to pay for health care. To some extent these measures might be seen as the beginning of a return to the user-pays principle. Such a move would be of significant concern to the Australian Democrats, who supported the introduction of what was intended to be a universal and equitable system of health care financing for this country. Fortunately there are back-up measures relating to most of the amendments made by this Bill which will enable some balancing of the desirability of a reduced domestic deficit with the needs of the disadvantaged. Like the Government, the Democrats appreciate the desirability of some reduction in public sector spending in our current economic circumstances. Unfortunately, many of the Government's proposed expenditure cuts in the human services areas do not meet with the stated goal of restraint with equity. There is no question that postponing pension indexation and poverty trap abolition places a thoroughly iniquitous burden on the already underprivileged, and the Democrats have already made it clear that our intention is to oppose those measures when they come before this place. However, as I have said, the initially draconian appearance of some of the proposals in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill does in fact belie some constructive improvements which are being proposed by the Government. The first substantive change contained in the Bill is the amendment by clause 5 to increase the maximum patient contribution payable in respect of a medical service from $10 to $20. This increase will be of any effect only in relation to services costing more than $67, as this is the level at which the gap between Medicare benefits and schedule fees reaches $10. While around half of the services listed in the schedule cost more than $67, I am advised that in terms of the frequency with which procedures are performed, only about 5 per cent of services cost over this amount. The maximum gap which an individual will be required to pay out-of-pocket in any one year will remain at $150. This safeguard for the chronically ill was, of course, one of the amendments to the originally proposed Medicare scheme for which the Democrats fought long and hard. With the maximum patient contribution in relation to individual services increasing, it is all the more important that this total maximum payment be retained. It is pleasing to see that the Government has extended the Democrats' commitment to providing for the chronically ill into the pharmaceuticals area, and I will return to that point later. We recognise that there has been no increase in the maximum gap since 1978, and that Australia still has one of the world's cheapest health care systems. The maintenance of the repayment of 85 per cent of the schedule fee means that it is still a real option for the medical profession to avoid passing on the cost of the increase in the gap to the disadvantaged by direct billing. For these reasons, the Democrats will not be opposing the increased maximum patient contribution. The reforms contained within this Bill with the most significant ramifications flow from the deceptively brief and simple words of clause 7. It is this provision which simultaneously removes Federal regulation and subsidisation of private hospitals. There is little controversy in relation to the abolition of Commonwealth controls over the approval and categorisation of private hospitals. All States have some role in regulation of private hospitals, and the States certainly are better placed to be conducting planning work, such as the regional allocation and redistribution of hospital beds. Not only has the States' work been duplicated by Federal involvement in this area, but also it has been hindered. State control of private hospitals will allow not only for more regionally appropriate policies, but also for more flexible and innovative-not to say entrepreneurial-approaches to provision and administration of services. The private hospitals and insurance funds have welcomed the proposed deregulation. Indeed, the various industry groups worked together on a working party which has produced a report containing recommendations for a system of patient classification which replaces the present hospital categorisation. This arrangement will ensure reimbursement more accurately reflecting patient needs and services provided, and will be administered within the industry. The development of these proposals has been an impressive example of industry co-operation in this area. Less impressive have been the comments of the Opposition's shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) which indicate that he is unaware of this working party and its report. He seems to suggest that this deregulation is merely a replacement of Federal regulation with some sort of categorisation at State level. Such a landmark co-operation should be more worthy of note by the Opposition. The concomitant initiative to deregulation, of course, is the abolition of Federal subsidies for private hospitals. The Democrats are conscious of potential problems with the abolition of the private hospital subsidy. In fact, we have looked carefully at a number of concerns relating to choice of and access to health care services. The first concern was that the subsidy abolition might restrict access of people whose preference was for private health care to the services of their choice by making private insurance prohibitively expensive for many. Without this Commonwealth funding private hospitals might pass these increases on to the consumer as either higher health insurance premiums or out-of-pocket hospital costs. The second significant concern, which flows from the first, was that if people were forced to abandon their private cover an inordinate strain would be imposed on the already badly overstretched public hospital system. The variables in all this, of course, are the level of increase in insurance premiums and the elasticity of demand for private insurance. It seems that an increase of around $1 to $1.50 a week for basic table cover for a family unit is expected if the whole cost to hospitals of subsidy abolition is passed on to contributors. Other figures of up to $2.50 a week have been suggested. It is expected that the Government will put some pressure on the insurance funds to absorb some of this increase through the substantial reserves that many funds have accumulated. It has been impossible to get any real assessment of just what figure is likely, why, and with what consequences. A further concern about which the Australian Democrats have been approached by relevant organisations is the effect of the abolition on those charitable, religious and community hospitals which have provided health care to needy uninsured people. There are, undoubtedly, some people for whom it has a special importance to sick and dying be cared for in a hospital administered by, for example, a particular religious group or charity. A number of hospitals have received the Federal subsidy in relation to patients, although they have not in fact been privately insured. A small number of such hospitals have a large proportion of their patient load in this category. Consistent with the priority we accord to freedom of choice in health care, the Democrats welcome the Government's intention to provide replacement financial assistance to such charitable and community hospitals which fulfil the criteria, including their reliance on such assistance, for their continued viability. The third area of major change foreshadowed by this Bill is that of pharmaceutical benefits. Clause 21 provides for an increase in the maximum patient contributions towards the cost of pharmaceuticals from 1 November. The cost to concessional beneficiaries will rise from $2.00 to $2.50, and the maximum paid by the general community will increase from $5 to $10, although the actual cost will often be less than $10. The Democrats will not oppose these increases, as we recognise that they will be the first since January 1983, are broadly in line with increases in income since then and, most importantly, because the Government is simultaneously introducing a commendable scheme to protect the interests of the chronically ill in the community. I will return to this in a moment. The impact of these Budget measures on the availability of pharmaceuticals to pensioners warrants special reference as the Democrats have been approached by a very large number of pensioners who are concerned about this. The Budget does not introduce any charge for pharmaceuticals to pensioners or sickness beneficiaries holding health benefits cards or their dependents. Many pensioners have had the mistaken impression that the Government's proposed delisting of 46 items from the pharmaceutical benefits schedule is part of these Budget measures. While that move will undoubtedly mean some savings in this area for the Government, it follows not from pre-Budget meetings seeking funding cuts but from the deliberations of a panel of medical experts on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Many of these deletions are undoubtedly warranted on medical grounds, such as products being superseded by superior drugs which remain on the free list. Many of the products will still be available to people over the counter in pharmacies and indeed in supermarkets. They will simply not be free. The Democrats have been concerned about the proposed deletion of some analgesics and in particular antihistamines. Despite our requests for an explanation, the Government has not accounted adequately for the difficulties which will result for some pensioners from this action, particularly people with chronic allergies. Despite our attempts to reach a compromise with the Government, we have not, as yet, been able to gain agreement on a mechanism which will provide for some of these people and we are continuing to pursue this course. The Government has introduced a laudable and long overdue scheme in its Budget measures as a safety net for chronically ill users of pharmaceuticals. Pursuant to clause 19, from 1 November no individual or family or concessional patient will have to pay for more than 25 prescriptions of items on the pharmaceutical bene- fits schedule in each calendar year. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, till 2 p.m. this day, matters of public interest may be discussed by senators, provided that no senator shall speak for more than 15 minutes. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(12.45) —A short time ago, the Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, announced that he wanted to set up a space station in north Queensland. It was envisaged that such a project could be completed sometime in the 21st century. Whilst the idea may have some merit, two important factors should be kept in mind. Firstly, Queensland members of parliament and parliamentary hopefuls are preparing for an election and any statement which covers up the gross mismanagement of the State is welcomed by the ruling National Party. Secondly, Sir Joh's announcement must be seen against some of his previous grand schemes. Although $93,000 has reportedly been given for a feasibility study for the space port, that is far short of what Sir Joh was prepared to outlay for another venture. This involved the infamous Dr Oskar. The Premier backed this Paraguayan businessman who claimed he would establish an oilseed plant in central Queensland. That seems, on the surface, a commendable action, but that perception vanishes when it is realised that Sir Joh's backing involved a loan guarantee of $6m from the State Government. It turns out that Dr Oskar was an eccentric visiting foreigner. Maybe that is the reason the Queensland Premier got on with him so well. After the Premier railroaded the $6m loan approval through the State Cabinet, untoward stories started to emerge about Oskar. Sir Joh, in typical fashion, described these stories as `claptrap and a load of hogwash'. Oskar's oilseed and processing plants in Fiji, New Zealand, Western Australia and Ireland had all failed with debts of $20m. No-one but the Premier of Queensland wanted Oskar. The then Treasurer, Llew Edwards, did not. Minister Mike Ahern would not have a bar of him. Yet the Premier's ardent support for a man who operated from Room 1907 of Lennons Hotel seemed to know no bounds. Finally, it became evident even to the Premier that Dr Oskar was at best a con man and more probably a crook. The Premier allowed the issue to fade away. Maybe his party organisation got to him and told him to drop Oskar before they were both pulled under. Although the reason for my next comment may not be initially seen, I must mention that by far the greatest majority of Queensland residents live close to the coast. One reason for this is that rainfall in the inland is low and unpredictable and thus agriculture and grazing become increasingly more difficult as distances from the coast increase. But rainfall is generally plentiful along the coast and this may have had something to do with Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen becoming hooked on a so-called hydrogen car, the major fuel for which was supposed to be water. On this occasion, the Premier made no financial commitment towards manufacture of the car. Hungarian-born and self-styled inventor of the hydrogen car, Stephen Horvath, told media representatives that the State Government had no financial involvement in his project, but that he had the moral support of the Premier and his Government. The car was described as working this way: Employing a V8 engine, the Horvath system supposedly involved passing a 40,000-volt current through a chamber filled with hydrogen. A small amount of hydrogen in the form of deuterium is transformed into helium via a so-called thermonuclear process, which creates the energy source. It is not surprising that Mr Horvath's claims were not universally embraced. A scientist from the University of Queensland said if the car worked in the way described by Mr Horvath, anyone driving it would be dead within ten seconds from a lethal dose of neutrons. The same scientist also said it would take a temperature of 40 million degrees to bring about the fusion reaction of deuterium. Sir Joh was not worried. He declared: `It's fantastic. All you've got to do is put water in the tank'. The car was brought to Brisbane and Sir Joh attended a lunchtime launching. The launching was reported as follows: `It's arrived. It's here, right before your very eyes,' an enthusiastic Sir Joh told the lunchtime crowd. `I forecast today will go down as a very special day in our history. This is cheap, pollution-free and readily available: it's just water.' The Premier stepped from the dais, drank a cup of water from a bright, lime-coloured can and poured the rest into the tank. But as he moved to start the car there was an embarrassed silence. A few minutes later Sir Joh announced: `Mr Stephen Horvath's mechanic has gone somewhere with the keys and we can't catch up with him . . . but I'm sure all you people can have a good look at the car, so long as you don't touch anything.' Sir Joh drove away in a petrol-powered vehicle and, shortly afterwards, one television station, lampooning the Premier, announced it was planning to unveil a machine which would turn lead into gold. Whether the keys to the car were ever found remains a mystery. Subsequently jailed cancer quack, Milan Brych, a Czech, was another of Sir Joh's favourites. Brych was a charlatan who preyed on those who had terminal cancer. He set himself up in the Cook Islands after being deregistered in New Zealand. He should never have been registered in the first place, but peddled his so-called `cures' for fantastic sums in New Zealand and the Cook Islands. Many of his patients came from Australia and he wanted to set up a cancer clinic in Queensland. He gained Sir Joh's approval and may have succeeded in his quest if it had not been for the persistence of Dr and later Sir Llew Edwards, the Deputy Premier of Queensland. Dr Edwards saw Brych for the quack that he was. Brych actually came to Brisbane and Sir Joh was ecstatic. He said: `We've a tremendous opportunity of getting a clinic here. It would become a centre of this method of treating cancer'. Dr Edwards, however, would have nothing of it. A report states: `He will not be registered by the will of the Premier or by the wish of the Premier,' Dr Edwards said. `As far as I am concerned, he is finished. He has left a sad story in Australia, a sad story in the Cook Islands, and the quicker he is forgotten, the better.' He was not about to be forgotten, however. He went to California where he was subsequently jailed and was released only recently. At his trial he was described as a con man, thief and charlatan, something suspected years ago by almost everybody in Queensland, except Sir Joh. I would like to return to the proposal for a 21st century space station in north Queensland. When I heard of this, I was reminded of a less grandiose scheme which was put forward by the then National-Liberal coalition during the 1977 Queensland election campaign. That was a commitment to build a rail link to the Moreton Bay centre of Redcliffe, a facility long overdue for the people on the Redcliffe Peninsula. Needless to say, nine years later, the link has not materialised. Perhaps the question is now: Which will come first, the space port or the Redcliffe rail link? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(12.53) —More than three years ago the Hawke Labor Government announced that it intended to acquire some one million hectares of land in the Cobar area, within the Western Lands Division of New South Wales. The Defence Department and the Government indicated that the purpose of that major acquisition was to have an Army manoeuvre area. There was, of course, from that moment for the many families that had lived there-some of them for a century or more-a very harsh series of compulsions. They were under the threat of acquisition and therefore unable to sell their land or make decisions within the normal commercial situation. That may have been justifiable for some months; it could not be justifiable for the many years that have passed. The fact that the Government made the announcement and has never made any decision subsequently has created quite inhumane conditions for many Australian people. Families are undergoing great economic stress. Indeed, there is some suggestion of marriage breakups because of the difficulties that are being faced. It ought not to be possible for a government virtually to freeze land over this lengthy period and deny ordinary families their right to choose whether they hold or sell their properties. The situation becomes even worse. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in a letter to Mrs Mary Turner in Orange and to the Hon. Ralph Hunt of the Opposition, the honourable member for Gwydir, made it perfectly clear to both of them that the Government would neither compulsorily acquire land nor forcibly dispossess people. Yet, in fact, the Government will not face up to that letter; there has been no recanting of it at all. The evidence has been brought out and yet the people themselves, having had that assurance, cannot act. Land values have depreciated very severely and what is called a blight has come upon the whole of the area. This becomes doubly worse because in the Estimates Committee E inquiries it has become clear that no money at all has been put forward in this Budget for any land acquisition or for any purpose, including environmental impact studies, in the Cobar area. That could mean a number of things. It means that the Government may have decided to do nothing and to surrender the land; if that is so, it should answer and tell the people that. It may mean that for another financial year the people of Cobar are going to suffer that inflexibility and that blight. I repeat that this is a ghastly, inhumane situation and it ought to be resolved. Three months ago, following the tabling of a Senate committee report rejecting Cobar, I wrote to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) drawing attention to a very personal problem of one of these people in Cobar and I asked for some speedy action. I had to write two days ago and remind him that three months have gone by and nothing has happened. I have had no substantive reply to a letter to this Minister in three months. I say that at the very least that is grossly inefficient and reflects the gross, cavalier attitude of this Government. At the worst it is totally inhumane because that particular family, facing enormous economic problems, has had no answer at all and has had to go on day to day. This Senate referred to a committee-the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-an inquiry into the question of a training centre, an infantry training and artillery training centre, in Bathurst-Orange and a manoeuvre centre in Cobar. That Committee tabled a very lengthy report some three months ago. Prior to its report, it became absolutely clear to the Government that it was a farce to go ahead with Bathurst-Orange; that every item of the Army's user requirement could not be achieved, none of them could be achieved in Bathurst-Orange. In fact, the Army relinquished it. The Senate Committee had before it overwhelming evidence that Cobar was totally unsuitable for use in a manoeuvre area. The user requirement was for, in fact, a corps exercise involving armoured units, Leopard tanks, heavily armoured vehicles, and some 3,000 men and materials, digging holes, making trenches, cutting down fences, and invading a territory which, by its very nature, is one of the most sensitive areas in an ecological background in Australia. The Western Lands Division was established by the State Government of New South Wales many years ago to protect the land against exactly this kind of outrage. The land itself is highly sensitive. It is largely arid country, a very low rainfall area-maybe eight or nine inches a year-and when the rain comes it comes in one heap; for the rest of the year, often it is a dust bowl, lightly covered with scrub and some vegetation, but very little; water courses that are absolutely dry for most of the year; and only small hills from Dubbo westward, almost a flat plain. Yet here was the Defence Department and the Government saying that this ought to be an Army manoeuvre area to be invaded by heavy Leopard tanks and thousands of troops who, in fact, would tear up the countryside. The user requirement by the Army was that it needed nice rolling country with running water courses, timber and vegetation, so that it could have a whole range of different conditions, none of which exists in Cobar. So the Senate Committee itself reported that it ought to be rejected, and I read its conclusion: In summary the Committee concludes that the proposed manoeuvre area at Cobar does not meet the Army's own user requirement. A reconnaissance by Army personnel, though seriously restrained by refusal of access to private land, found that large areas of the site were of little training value because of limitations imposed by terrain and vegetation and that in the case of water crossing operations the site offered no possibility of realistic training . . . The Army reconnaisance report went so far as to raise the question of whether the Cobar area, given its sensitivity and featureless terrain, would in practice offer any increase in training potential for a mechanical brigade over that which already exists at Shoalwater Bay in Queensland. The Senate Committee, of course, concluded outright that it was a nonsense situation and a great assault upon the sensitive ecology of the area to go into that area, but the Committee also said that since the Government's strategic appreciation indicated that any threats were likely to come from the north in sub-tropical or tropical areas, the training of these units should be in that kind of situation; a situation totally foreign to Cobar itself and to the Western Lands Division. It also indicated that the strategic appreciation had pointed out that in such an onslaught on Australia there would not be the need for corps force movements and heavy armoured units. Therefore the last thing that the Army would be wanting in terms of the strategic appreciation of the Government would be a place like Cobar which bears no relationship whatsoever to the sub-tropical areas; no relationship to the terrain at all and certainly would be raped by mechanised forces. But the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, which now the Government has embraced, states: The Review notes that its proposals for a reduced emphasis on mechanised and armoured operations may affect the basis of selection of a new fuel firing and manoeuvre area. So the Dibb report rejects Cobar in a diplomatic way. In fact, the Dibb report strengthens the concepts that if there is to be training, it should be up north where there is the likelihood of incidents; it should be in small, independent groups, lightly armoured groups; and a corps force with Leopard tanks is ridiculous for that situation. So that at every level Cobar has been rejected. The Army, which did the reconnaissance itself, has rejected the situation; Dibb has given an entirely different scenario. The Senate Committee over many months has rejected the situation and yet year by year the people there are suffering a gross assault upon their rights and freedoms. Gross damage is occurring to their families and to their economic situation and the Government does nothing. It will not even answer a letter after three months. Senator Peter Baume —Arrogance. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Yes. What kind of arrogance and impertinence is this? But the Senate Committee report, of course, said another thing. It was interested in this whole question of land acquisition, and there is still a reference before the Senate Committee on this matter, waiting upon the Government which promised it some six months ago to bring in an amendment to the Lands Acquisition Act; but it has not been here and we are still waiting on it. The Committee faced two particular problems and a dilemma. It had had the letter from the Prime Minister stating emphatically that there would be no compulsory acquisition and no forced dispossession. Why, then, should there be any blight at all? Everybody knows that no landowners would willingly and voluntarily give up the land that is theirs; that is, given the free choice. The Government has known this situation and yet on this goes. It is one of the worst outrages I have seen. The all-party Senate Committee itself-unanimously, incidentally-said in its recommendation: Thus the Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government clarify its policy on the compulsory acquisition of land in peacetime for defence purposes before proceeding further with evaluation of the Cobar site. I repeat, Madam Acting Deputy President, that there is no money at all in the Budget for Cobar for any reason. That is a clear statement from the Estimates Committee and that can mean a number of things. If it does not mean that the Government has put aside this thing, it must mean that for another year these people are to be forcibly frozen in terms of their land and the devaluation of their land. I repeat: I know nothing more inhumane than that kind of approach. There is no money; it is not going to happen; there is no environmental statement. It is true that the Western Lands Commissioner, Mr Pearson of the New South Wales Government, is undertaking a survey and, if that means that this is going to drag on for another year, this Government ought to be totally censured for one of the worst breaches of human freedom that there could possibly be. How much more do we want? We have a Senate Committee report that condemns it; we have Army reports that condemn the situation; we have no money in the Budget and, of course, no answers from the Government. I rise to say that I urge the Government in the name of humanity to give us an answer and to free the people of that area from the present blight. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(1.07) —I want to raise today the question of a particular kind of VIP flight; that is, the VIP flight that has, on occasions, been used to take a member of the other place, the Treasurer, Mr Keating, from what is purported to be his home base of Sydney to the place where he lives away from home, which is Canberra, and where he receives, in fact, a living away from home allowance by living in Canberra. On a recent television program-I forget on which channel-there was an interview involving Mr Keating and, as I recall it, his wife, on the way back from attending an evening function in what is now described as his home base of Sydney. They were returning, having been to that function in Sydney, to Canberra by VIP aircraft. At that hour of night it would be very difficult to establish that the Treasurer was returning to Canberra in order to perform some official function which, of course, would be an appropriate use of a VIP aircraft. Coming to Canberra for official reasons is naturally and properly done by Ministers of the Government and, on occasions, by, in fact, office-holders; in other words, Opposition members and senators. There is no complaint about that. The issue is whether it is proper to use a VIP aircraft to go from what is purported to be one's home base in order to come to Canberra, not for official purposes, but in order to be in one's living away from home location and to be paid $95-as it was then; it is now $100-a night for so doing. The concept of catching a VIP aircraft to fly to Canberra to earn $95 in living away from home allowance strikes me as absurd. There is an impropriety. I am not quite certain where the impropriety lies. Does it lie in having as one's stated home base a place where one does not live, thereby enabling one to get living away from home allowance in the place where one does in fact live with one's family-that is Canberra-or is there impropriety in using a VIP aircraft to be taken to Canberra for a purpose which is clearly not an official purpose? In other words, the flight is to come to Canberra to be with one's family and for no other purpose than that. Senator Reid —So that he can get his travel allowance. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Reid says, so that he can get his travel allowance. The reason I raise this- Senator Ryan —You do not know whether Mr Keating had an official engagement in Canberra or not. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —If he had an official engagement at the time he was getting that aircraft, Senator, I would be overjoyed to find out because, if you watched the television program, you would see that it was late at night. He had been attending a ball, of all things, in Sydney. I know this Government is enthusiastic about calling meetings all the time, but if a meeting was called to take place in the early hours of the morning in Canberra on that night, I would be grateful for the information. Senator Ryan —Cabinet often meets beyond midnight. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As a result of Senator Ryan's intervention, I would now suggest that it would be proper if the Government were to provide the Senate with details of every occasion on which the Treasurer has flown, from Sydney in particular, at night to Canberra, particularly on those occasions where it would appear that there was no official function for him to attend in Canberra and that the only purpose of his return- Senator Ryan —You are making allegations based on speculation. You don't know why he returned to Canberra. You do not know what his commitments were the next morning, what time they started. It is a fact that Cabinet meetings often go beyond midnight. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the honourable senator for her intervention. The fact that she is now questioning the proposition I was putting underlines the need for the Government to come clean and tell us. What are all the occasions? We know from watching the television, from seeing this program, that late at night the Treasurer and his wife returned to what is allegedly their living away from home spot, having left their so-called home base. Senator Ryan —You do not know why. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —We know the reason he does not stay in his home base is that in fact he has no accommodation in his home base and his accommodation is permanently here. But as the senator has intervened, all I say to her is that I look forward to receiving the information so that if on no occasion the Treasurer returned to Canberra simply to live away from home and had no other function, happily I would withdraw any suggestion of impropriety. Senator Ryan —Perhaps you should find out before you make it. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —The interesting thing is that the Government appears to be very reluctant to come out with information. It has to be dragged out of the Government in this area. For example, the Cabinet decision which increased the capacity of Ministers to get a living away from home allowance by living in Canberra was never conveyed to office-holders in the Opposition, to whom this would have a specific relevance. A decision was made in 1982 by the previous Government which clearly handled this matter. In fact, Senator Sir John Carrick, as I recall it, released it in this place at the time. Mr Howard referred to this the other day by saying that the Hawke Government had significantly widened the eligibility of Ministers to receive travel allowance by broadening the interpretation of `principal place of residence'. According to Mr Hawke, the Treasurer's principal place of residence is where he does not live and that seems to be the situation. Back in 1982, Mr Justice Mahoney, in response to a request from the then Government, said: In the end, the question whether a particular place is the principal place of residence must be determined according to the ordinary meaning of the term and the facts of the particular case. In December 1982, Senator Sir John Carrick said that the Government had interpreted `principal place of residence' as meaning the place where Ministers and office-holders resided for most of the time or where their family was normally based. That seems a pretty reasonable and rational definition. That definition has now been overturned, secretly, and ultimately released only when the Government was put under pressure to do so, just as I hope I am putting the Government under enough pressure to reveal information about these VIP flights. The burden of Mr Hawke's response to Mr Howard at the time was that this definition was established clearly by Mr Justice Mahoney. Senator Ryan —I would like to take a point of order that Senator Michael Baume is clearly breaching the agreement reached between Government and Opposition about the use of this time. This is a free time for senators to raise matters that they wish to place on record, but there is an agreement between Government and Opposition that the time not be used for raising controversial matters which may end up in a division being called for. Senator Reid —On the point of order: My understanding of the agreement from the Whips' meetings is that it is a time when we have speeches in lieu of first reading debates, which does not mean that they may not be controversial; in fact, I understand there to be no agreement that they are non-controversial; that they are in lieu of first reading debates when this type of topic could in fact be brought up and debated. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —I thought that matter had been discussed previously, and that matters of general interest were to be raised. I ask Senator Michael Baume to keep within those borders. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. In fact, some correspondence recently took place between the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) which in fact broadened the base on which these discussions could take place; in fact, as I understand it, this emerged from the Government calling a quorum on me when I raised the question of the Treasurer's language and read into the record a whole range of offensive language that he had used in the other place. It was following that that the question was clearly resolved, as I understand it, in the correspondence. Senator Robertson —I raise a point of order. Is Senator Michael Baume challenging your ruling on this matter, or is he carrying on with the content of his speech? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I was simply referring the Senate to the substance of correspondence that passed on this very matter of the point of order. I am dealing with the matter of the point of order. Senator Robertson —We know exactly what has happened and you are debating the issue of the Acting Deputy President's ruling. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Baume, I think perhaps you should keep your remarks within reason. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Right, Madam Acting Deputy President. I basically got up to note that the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 20 September had in fact written an editorial to which I had replied. I had sent a letter to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald replying to the burden of that editorial, which related to the general question of living away from home allowances. Unfortunately, the Sydney Morning Herald decided not to print my response, and for whatever reasons it had it is entitled so to do. But the fact is that this editorial raised this question and made the point-the argument went on for some time-of the absurdity of singling out Mr Keating for special treatment. It went on: The fact is that the sensible notion of a travelling allowance for Members of Parliament has become a rort. Perhaps Mr Keating, who is leading the war against tax-free rorts, deserves special attention. But the Opposition should not forget that many of its members are participating in the same rort. I am making a general point about this whole question of living away from home allowances and what is held by the newspaper to be a rort. I wrote a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald, responding to that editorial, in the following terms: The Opposition has `singled out' Mr Keating for attack over his travel allowance for a reason that your editorial defending him strangely ignores: Mr Keating has received a tax-free benefit of more than $30,000 over the past two years by making a declaration that is patently false. He is obliged by the Remuneration Tribunal-- this question of what one declares as one's home base affects all of us; it affects every member and senator-- to declare as his home base for travel allowance purposes his `permanent place of residence'. He has chosen to declare a house in which he has admitted he does not live as his `permanent place of residence' in order to receive a living away from home allowance while residing with his family in Canberra. His Canberra address is the self-acknowledged permanent place of residence under the Electoral Act; he is listed there in the Electoral Roll. I do not know whether this affects any other senators or members. Perhaps if it does, some change in the arrangements should be made. I go back to my letter: His defence that the only house he owns is in Sydney, is nonsensical; the requirement is `place of residence', not `ownership' of a house, otherwise he could, like his similarly peripatetic ALP colleague, Mr Unsworth, claim a weekender in Tweed Heads as his home base. Then I deal with the question which I have raised about catching VIP aircraft to go back to Canberra. I then go on: These flights to Canberra are one reason the official figures suggest he may have spent no more than 11 nights in his `home base' of Sydney last year while spending 182 nights living away from home with his family in Canberra and receiving $100 a night for doing so. I also suggested to the Sydney Morning Herald as follows: I do not recall your mounting a similar defence of Mr Tony Street several years ago when he was criticised over living away from home claims made before the previous Government instituted stricter rules about `home base', which the Hawke Government appears to have removed. Surely what was sauce for the Liberal gander should now be sauce for this Labor goose. Madam Acting Deputy President, there is a problem. It is clear that the Sydney Morning Herald editorial has identified it. We have a problem relating not simply to place of residence but also to the use of VIP aircraft. I thank the Minister for her intervention and I am certain that her interest in making certain that the Senate is fully advised on this matter will be, in fact, translated into revealing the information that the Government has so far not revealed. Sitting suspended from 1.22 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce both in his own capacity and also as the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Minister's welcome remarks in the Senate yesterday afternoon that community recognition for commercial success was at the forefront of the attitudinal changes needed in Australia. I quote the remarks which the Minister made in this place: . . . the more we recognise success in business and innovation in industry the more success will follow from that recognition. I ask whether the Minister is aware that, referring to the recently published list of the 200 wealthiest people in Australia, the Prime Minister told the audience at a function in Brisbane last month: Assets of hundreds of millions of dollars in individual cases, a lot of which, and this is not said with any sense of anger or envy, has been, or most of the overwhelming majority has been, obtained illegally. I stress those words `most of the overwhelming majority has been, obtained illegally'. I tell the Minister that I ask this question because of the outrage of at least one member of that two hundred who, to my knowledge, has made his money very honestly indeed. I ask him: Given his acknowledgment of the need to recognise commercial success, will he dissociate himself from the Prime Minister's generalised slur on a group of very successful Australians? Senator BUTTON —I do not retreat in any way from what I said yesterday, that this country would be better served if there was a wider community recognition of success in business and innovation in industry. I can only assume that the Prime Minister was talking about tax avoidance. That is not an industry which we in the Government particularly admire, although it got a very easy go from Opposition members when they were in government. I think the Prime Minister was probably referring to that fact. Certainly I would not embrace in my remarks the tax avoidance industry as one worthy of high praise and recognition from the Australian community. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question following that non-answer. I am quite happy to quote again the Prime Minister's remarks when referring to those 200 Australians. He said: Assets of hundreds of millions of dollars in individual cases, a lot of which-- and went on to say: or most of the overwhelming majority has been, obtained illegally. I ask whether the Minister dissociates himself from that generalised slur; or does he support it? Senator BUTTON —Clearly I am not as informed as the Prime Minister about those matters. I do not know the context in which those remarks were made. If the Prime Minister was talking about the 200 people in the Business Review Weekly list, I make the point that a lot of them have been business successes and I guess a few of them have been involved in tax avoidance from time to time. After all, it was par for the course when honourable senators opposite were in government. Senator ELSTOB —I bring to the attention of the Minister representing the Attorney-General the South African film The Gods Must Be Crazy, which has been showing for extraordinary lengths of time in most Australian capital cities and which beyond doubt seeks to raise sympathy for the separatist policies of the South African regime. What action is the Government able to take to curb this sickening display of misinformation? Will the Minister investigate the possibility of covert South African funding being used to prop up the showing of this film long after its commercial viability has passed? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have not seen the film in question, so I cannot possibly make any comment about it. The brief I have from the Attorney-General on this subject is to the following effect: The Film Censorship Board registered this film in 1983 and classified it as NRC, not recommended for children, and later as PG, parental guidance. The film was found by the Board to have a simplistic plot involving slapstick violence and some crude language which caused the NRC classification. The film has been exhibited in other countries, including the United Kingdom at the 1981 London film festival. The Film Censorship Board did not find, as it was able to do, I suppose, that this film was undesirable in the public interest, using regulation 13 (1) (c) of the Customs Cinematograph Films Regulations, through racism or its advocacy of violence. But there is, of course, a view current in the community, which Senator Elstob's question reflects, that this film may be, in its simplistic caricaturing of black people, regarded as a tool of South African misinformation. That issue has been debated in the Press. I am not, as I said, in a position to make any judgment about it. However, other comments made about the film, here and overseas, are to the opposite effect, that the film is uplifting and that it knocks about local ideas of racial superiority. So, I suppose, as with most things, one's judgment of the character of the film depends on the eye of the beholder. Beyond that, I am not able to make any comment. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I remind him that Mr Keating defines `principal residence' widely for his travel allowance but narrowly for Australian home owners. To mark last Saturday's anniversary of the introduction of the capital gains tax, I ask whether the Minister is aware of the circumstances in which a taxpayer's principal residence is subject to capital gains tax and under what circumstances, if any, the tax exemption for the principal residence would be available for a person who rents his premises and lives in another house. Senator WALSH —Subject to confirmation-because I am not sure that I can accurately remember the details of this-I believe the position is that a person may own one residence and, whether living in that residence or not, that residence continues to attract exemption from capital gains tax if it is sold, provided that the person does not own another residence at the same time. That is exactly the position which Mr Keating is in. He owns only one residence, and I believe that, should that be sold and should there be a real gain on it, there would be no taxation levied, but I will have that confirmed. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy both in his own capacity and as Acting Foreign Minister. The Minister will recall my earlier questions concerning the Chernobyl disaster and international arrangements that might be put in place as a consequence. What progress has been made, particularly by the Australian Government, since the Chernobyl accident, towards minimising the effect on neighbouring countries of any similar future accident, whether it occurs in the Soviet Union or elsewhere? Further, what has been done towards providing international assistance to a country which suffers a nuclear accident or radiological emergency? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am pleased to be able to tell Senator Tate that Australia will, along with a number of other countries, tomorrow sign two major new international nuclear safety conventions in Vienna during a special International Atomic Energy Agency conference. One of the conventions provides for early notification of a nuclear accident with potential transboundary effects, and the other provides for emergency assistance in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency. Australia played a very major role in launching the negotiation of these conventions as a matter of priority following the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident, which demonstrated manifest gaps in current international arrangements for nuclear safety. I mention, in parentheses, that the final report of the working group of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was tabled in the Senate yesterday. This report sets out a detailed description of the causes of the accident and its implications as they are now perceived to be. In a Press release back in May, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, had identified the main gaps thrown up by the Chernobyl accident as the absence of an effective early warning system and multilateral emergency assistance arrangements, and urged the negotiation of international conventions. Under the notification convention a state is obliged to notify other states which may be adversely affected and the IAEA of a nuclear accident involving its military and civil facilities and activities, except nuclear weapons. In relation to nuclear weapons, Australia welcomes the statements that were made last night at the special conference in Vienna by all five nuclear weapons states that they would also notify, within the framework of the convention, any nuclear weapon accident which has or which might have significant radiological effects on another state. As a party to the notification convention, Australia will promptly be provided with detailed information about major nuclear accidents, particularly those that could directly affect Australia. This will enable Australian authorities to cope more effectively with the effects of a nuclear accident involving Australia or Australians overseas. The other convention, the assistance convention, provides a framework for the provision of prompt assistance by states and the IAEA to a country which requests assistance following a nuclear accident or radiological emergency. Under this convention Australia will be able to seek assistance within an internationally agreed framework in the event of some nuclear accident or radiological emergency affecting Australia. The convention also provides an internationally agreed framework for the provision of assistance should Australia wish to assist another country in similar circumstances. It scarcely needs to be said that the Australian Government welcomes the conventions as a practical and timely response to the Chernobyl accident, but the overriding objective must remain the prevention of nuclear accidents. Senator HAINES —My question also is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to a recent newspaper item in which he is reported to have assured the head of Peko-Wallsend Ltd, Charles Copeman, that he personally supported mining in stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park. Has the Minister's support for mining in stage 3 of Kakadu been conveyed to Mr Copeman, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd or any other representatives of the mining lobby in advance of the Government's final decision on that question? Is the letter to Mr Copeman not further evidence that Government policy-making is under the direct influence of the New Right? Has the recent spate of attacks on the New Right, including on Mr Copeman, by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, been an attempt to deflect attention from this frightening trend? What assurances is the Minister prepared to offer the large number of conservation minded Australians that their concerns will have any bearing on Government decisions on this or any other matters when pitted against the New Right lobby? Senator GARETH EVANS —Senator Haines's question contains it own answer. So, far from the decision with respect to Kakadu stages 1 and 2 demonstrating the influence of the New Right, I would have thought it was a spectacular demonstration of how little influence the New Right had on the Government's final decision. I cannot recall putting anything to anyone in writing about stage 3. I have, of course, had some conversations, in particular with BHP, about the implications of a stage 3 declaration for various mining lease interests, including Coronation Hill, which is a lease of BHP. I might well have had similar discussions, as I do on many occasions, with representatives of the mining industry about the issues that will have to be weighed and balanced by the Government in coming to a final decision on that matter. I can assure Senator Haines and the Australian Democrats, and anybody else who may be interested in this matter, however, that no decision that the Government makes about stage 3 or about the sequence in which stage 3 is declared will in any way put at risk the basic objective, which was identified by Mr Justice Fox and to which the Government readily accedes, of protecting the catchment area of the South Alligator River from environmental pollution in any form. That remains a priority that must be satisfied. Any conceivable mining activity that may go ahead in stage 3 will go ahead only if it can satisfy, as I have said on numerous occasions, stringent environmental standards, which will mean that it does not impinge in any adverse way on the South Alligator catchment. Senator MORRIS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it correct that the Australian Taxation Office in Sydney is entering into a contract on a trial basis to have some of its data processing work keyed by private contractors? Is it also true that the work could be done for the same cost or less in the Taxation Office itself and that the approximate cost of this scheme, $55,000, will be taken from funds allocated for salaries and wages? If this is true, what security arrangements will be undertaken to ensure that the confidentiality of information provided by taxpayers will not be jeopardised? Senator WALSH —There were three parts to the honourable senator's question. I understand that the answer to the first part is yes; that is, that the Taxation Office in Sydney has contracted out some data processing work. I received a letter a few days ago from, I think, the Federated Clerks Union of Australia on the same subject. I annotated it along the lines of: Please get in touch with the Treasurer, firstly, to see whether the facts which were stated similarly in that letter are correct and, secondly, the reasons for the Taxation Office taking the action which it apparently has. Whichever comes in first-either a reply to my direct personal question to the Treasurer or a referral of this question from the Senate to the Treasurer-I will get the honourable senator a definitive reply as soon as I can. Senator BOSWELL —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer the Minister to an answer that he gave yesterday in relation to Queensland charges. Does the Minister realise that the figures that he quoted then are selected State and local government charges from the Australian Bureau of Statistics consumer price index series? Does the Minister understand that the local government component of these charges is greater than the State government component and that State Government does not control local government charges in any way? Is the Minister aware that, in the last 12 months of a Labor administration, the Brisbane City Council charges rose by 16.3 per cent compared with the national capital city average of 7.8 per cent and that, under the present Liberal administration for a similar 12-month period, they rose by only 5.3 per cent? Is this further evidence that the Australian Labor Party is a bunch of tax gatherers, as an examination of tax in State Budget papers and ABS catalogues will prove? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's question was getting a bit too long. I remind him of what I said yesterday. Senator WALSH —All the excuses and apologias in the world do not alter the fact that, according to the ABS index of government charges, in the last two years charges in Queensland have increased by 50 per cent more than the capital city average and by about 50 per cent more than the consumer price index. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, who would be aware of severe overcrowding and complaints from the public caused by heavy passenger traffic at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and the International Airport in Sydney. Will the Minister indicate what Government initiatives are contemplated to solve these problems? Would the use of the existing rail line for passenger traffic to the city be considered in any review of the problem? Senator GIETZELT —Honourable senators from New South Wales and those who have to use Sydney Airport for transit reasons will appreciate that the problem of passenger traffic into and out of Sydney Airport has got increasingly more difficult. I think that is largely because of the congestion that has been apparent at Sydney Airport for the last 20 years. The previous Government was not prepared to grasp the nettle and take the step of establishing an alternative site which this Government has provided in recent times. However, in the interim, in preparing for the construction of a second airport, the Government has taken steps to handle the increasing levels of traffic until such relief is provided by that construction to which I have referred. The airport will therefore require expansion of existing facilities to cope with that increasing traffic that I have mentioned. A $19m project is under way to augment the taxiways, with $4.8m to be spent in the current financial year. Another $22.61m-at June 1986 figures, I am advised-is to be spent on a project to improve the international terminal building. That is to be commenced later this year, with $3m to be spent in the current financial year. There will be an interim system to exhibit aircraft call signs and altitude and radar displays at the Sydney area approach control centre. The Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales have agreed that a committee of Commonwealth officials and State officials, known as the New South Wales Airfields Committee, will examine a number of issues relating to the problems of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport to do whatever else is necessary to improve passenger flows into and out of Sydney Airport. Senator MacGIBBON —Now that a new and fourth inquiry is to be set up into the Australian War Memorial, will the Minister for Veterans' Affairs wait until he receives the report of the latest inquiry, or will he continue his spiteful personal vendetta, carried out under parliamentary privilege, against the professional character of the Museum's Director and against those members of the Council who he assumes do not share his extreme left wing views? Senator GIETZELT —There is nothing personal in respect of the differences between the way in which I regard my responsibilities as a Minister to the Parliament and the people of this country and the administration of the Australian War Memorial; it should function properly. Several matters came to my attention and I referred them to the Council for consideration. The Council, at its meeting yesterday, unanimously agreed to call for a further investigation into those matters. I have agreed to its suggestion that the investigation will continue, or a new investigation will commence, depending on negotiations on Tuesday next week between me and the chairperson and other senior members of the Council of the Australian War Memorial. I have agreed to the Council's request to grant leave to the Director on full pay until the inquiry has completed its investigations. In the meantime, I will appoint an officer from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to act as administrator of the Australian War Memorial, as I was requested to do in the communications conveyed yesterday to me by the chairperson in Brisbane when I was attending some veterans functions there. There are a number of serious matters and I believe that it is my obligation as Minister to have them properly investigated. It has never been suggested at any stage-except in the question asked by Senator MacGibbon-that there has been a clash of personalities. I have handled these matters by referring them officially to the Australian War Memorial Council. The Council has met to consider the matters and yesterday spent several hours determining the matters. It found that the matters required further investigation. I will co-operate with the Council to realise the objectives of proper administration of the Council. Senator MacGIBBON —I raise a supplementary question, Mr President. If that is true, why has the Minister made assertions about the actions of the Director and the Council in advance of the reports of the committees of inquiry? Senator GIETZELT —I did not make any allegations. A number of matters were drawn to my attention which showed that there were aspects that required investigation by the Council. I put those matters in the hands of an investigator appointed by me from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Those matters will be considered by the new investigator who is yet to be appointed. Senator Robert Ray having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State- Senator Chaney-On a point of order, Mr President: I do not see how this matter fits within the Minister's ministerial responsibility. It seems to be an at-large question relating to a foreign former head of state. Honourable senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! I cannot hear the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator Chaney-The question concerns the views of a person who was and is no longer a head of government and applies those views to the leader of a State of the Commonwealth. I fail to see that the Special Minister of State and, indeed, this Parliament have anything to do with that. Senator Gareth Evans-I do not mind being rubbed out because Senator Robert Ray did not give me any notice of that question, and I cannot think of any laugh lines at all. The PRESIDENT —In those circumstances, I should allow the question. However, I will not allow the question. Senator WALTERS —My question is directed to you, Mr President. Are you aware that this morning Senator Walsh used the expression `sleazebag' and was not required to withdraw it by the Acting Deputy President at the time? Do you believe that such language in any circumstances is unparliamentary? In view of the fact that the Minister for Finance continually resorts to personal abuse of this kind, will you consider consulting with the Deputy President and the other honourable senators who from time to time are required to occupy the chair about the sort of language that is permissible in this place as opposed to that used in the other place? The PRESIDENT —It is not my intention to comment on an event that took place when I was not the occupant of the chair. The ruling on a matter of that nature is one for the occupant of the chair at the time. I have no other comment to make on the matter. Senator Coleman —On a point of order, Mr President. I was the occupant of the chair at that time and while I did-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I suggest that the honourable senator make a statement after Question Time. Senator REYNOLDS —Has the Minister for Education seen recent Press reports which indicate that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has assessed Australia as one of the few countries that will see an improvement in prospects for youth next year? Can the Minister outline reasons for this positive assessment of the Federal Government's youth and education policies? Senator RYAN —All honourable senators who have been concerned about high levels of youth unemployment will welcome the OECD's assessment, which is that significant improvements have been made in reducing those levels of youth unemployment and that we in Australia can expect those improvements to continue. I think that Australia is the only Western country in the OECD about which that forecast can be made. I think that there should be bipartisan welcoming of this news. It is certainly worth placing on record that the Government's education policies have significantly contributed to the improved situation for youth. In 1985 about 46 per cent of our young people were completing a full 12 years of education, in contrast to less than a third when we came to office. The improvement in youth allowances, which we announced in the Budget and which we will implement over the next few years, will lead to a further increase in those in education. The number of students in higher education places is now at a record high, with 300,000 places in 1987 for young people in higher education, contributing further to opportunities for young people to avoid unemployment. It is worth pointing out that the contribution of education is significant in more than a statistical way. Young people who are staying on to finish their schooling or taking up places in colleges of technical and further education and other higher education institutions are equipping themselves better for the jobs that exist when they go on to the labour market. When we announced our increased participation strategies some scepticism was expressed as to the value of keeping young people in the education system at a time of high unemployment. But, clearly, the high employability of our graduates and the demand on the labour market for young people with TAFE qualifications of various kinds demonstrate that education is making a massive contribution not only to reducing youth unemployment but also to producing a more highly skilled and productive labour market. As I said at the outset, I think that all honourable senators should welcome these developments on a bipartisan basis. Senator TEAGUE —The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs will be aware that the Parliamentary Disarmament Forum will be held here tomorrow. My question concerns Australia's contributions to achieving progress in arms control and multilateral disarmament. Has the Australian Ambassador for Disarmament indicated this week cautious optimism that a universal chemical weapons ban may be achieved within 12 months? Also, what is the Australian Government's assessment of three other developments this week, namely, the reopening of the Geneva negotiations; the breakthrough for arms control in Europe, announced in Stockholm; and President Reagan's constructive speech to the United Nations General Assembly? Finally, in the Government's view, what continuing role is there for Australia and Australian initiatives in these developments? Senator GARETH EVANS —On the first question about chemical weapons, it is the case that the Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr Richard Butler, has expressed optimism about the likelihood of concluding a chemical weapons treaty in the light of very encouraging progress over the course of the recently concluded session of the Conference on Disarmament in Sweden. On the second question about the reopening of the Geneva negotiations, it is the case that both sides have now put forward a number of detailed proposals in these bilateral negotiations, including a recent exchange of correspondence between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. These envisage substantial reductions in their respective nuclear arsenals of the order of 30 to 50 per cent in strategic weapons and an interim agreement involving reductions in intermediate range nuclear forces. They also address the difficult and contentious issue of research into strategic defences being conducted by both sides. In addition, there have been two meetings recently in Moscow and Washington between the United States and Soviet arms control experts to help prepare for the United States-Soviet summit. I should say that these matters were also discussed in Mr Shevardnadze's meetings with President Reagan and Secretary Shultz over the last few days. The Australian Government hopes, of course, that these developments will pave the way for substantive negotiations on deep reductions in offensive nuclear forces in the sixth round of nuclear and space arms talks between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which opened in Geneva last week. As to the breakthrough for arms control in Europe, announced in Stockholm, there is quite a deal that I can say about that. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I sought leave to incorporate that in Hansard. It is a significant breakthrough and there is a lot of detail which I think the Senate would be interested in. I seek leave accordingly. Leave granted. The document read as follows- STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT IN EUROPE (CDE) The first phase of the Stockholm Conference concluded during the past few days with agreement on a package of measures concerning advance notice of certain military activities in Europe. The objective of these measures is to introduce a greater element of openness into European military activity particularly military exercises thereby contributing to the prevention of misunderstandings about military movements and to a reduction in tensions. 2. The measures agreed upon include compulsory notification 42 days in advance of military exercises involving at least 13,000 troops or at least 300 battle tanks. Amphibious or parachute drop activities involving at least 3,000 troops are also subject to prior notification. In addition all CDE participants will have the opportunity to observe military exercises involving at least 17,000 troops, or in the case of amphibious/parachute drop activities, at least 5,000 troops. A potentially significant development is the acceptance of compulsory on site inspections from the air or ground (or both) to verify compliance with the information exchange measures. 3. Confidence building measures of this sort are one step removed from disarmament since they do not necessarily involve the reduction of military arsenals. However, the results of this first phase of the Stockholm conference will be assessed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) review meeting which commences in Vienna on 4 November. The Vienna meeting will decide whether sufficient progress has been made for the CDE to proceed to its second phase when actual disarmament measures will be discussed. 4. Although Australia is not a participant in the CDE it has followed the conference closely. The Government welcomes the agreement which has been reached at Stockholm. Australia takes the view that greater openness on military activities is essential if meaningful progress is to take place on disarmament and arms control. Senator Teague —Can it also be tabled? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, the honourable senator can have it straightaway. As to President Reagan's speech to the United Nations General Assembly, I can say this: In his recent address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Reagan has given details of his most recent arms control proposal to General Secretary Gorbachev. Mr Reagan has indicated a willingness to agree not to deploy any strategic defensive system which might be generated as a result of the research into strategic defences being conducted by both sides for the next seven years or so if the United States and the Soviet Union could reach common ground on reducing strategic defensive forces. This offer is apparently in response to an earlier proposal by Mr Gorbachev that both sides should proclaim their commitment not to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missiles treaty for the next 15 to 20 years. The Government, I can say, welcomes these developments as an indication that the two sides now appear to be, at long last, engaged in a process of substantive negotiations on these important issues. We have long seen a need for not only the Soviet Union but also the United States to come to agreement on the issue of research into strategic defences and for assurances against sudden breakout or withdrawal from the ABM treaty. Such understandings would, in the Government's view, reduce the likelihood of an arms race in outer space and enhance prospects for concluding an agreement or agreements to reduce offensive nuclear weapons radically. As to the final point about Australia and Australian initiatives and a role for them in these matters, we will certainly continue to exercise our influence to the utmost in support of international disarmament. The principal focus of our efforts will remain the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva where our principal objectives will be, firstly, the achievement of a comprehensive test ban treaty; secondly, the conclusion of a convention on chemical weapons; and thirdly, the securing of agreement on measures to prevent an arms race in outer space. I should also perhaps refer in this respect to what Mr Hawke said in the House of Representatives on 24 September, addressing a question put to him at Question Time on those matters. I thank the honourable senator for his question. Senator COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the recent promise of the Leader of the Opposition to abolish the fringe benefits tax `lock, stock and barrel', to quote his words, if or when he comes to power. I ask the Minister whether the Government has evaluated the cost to revenue if that promise were to be kept and what the evaluation shows. Senator WALSH —The estimated revenue for this financial year from the fringe benefits tax is $325m and the estimate for the next year, with full year effect, is $575m. The cost of abolishing the tax, however, would ultimately be a good deal more than that because if Mr Howard were to implement the undertaking he gave yesterday and abolish the fringe benefits tax there would be a stampede into the conversion of income from income in cash to income in kind. In other words, the taxation system would again haemorrhage with loss of revenue and the tax base would be whittled away, probably to about half the size it now is, if that disastrous undertaking of the Leader of the Opposition were actually put into place. There are other estimates, explicit and implicit, of the present revenue yield of the fringe benefits tax. For example, I referred to one the other day in the advertisement sponsored by Mr Hay, Mr Ansett and Mr McLachlan, which implicitly stated that $2 billion would be collected from small business alone. I would not expect that small business would be paying as much fringe benefits tax as big business. That, of course, is a patently false estimate, put in by three completely unscrupulous people in an attempt to enlist recruits for their cause. It is worthy of note that two possible interpretations could be put on Mr Howard's promise that the fringe benefits tax would be abolished. One is that he would actually enforce effectively section 26(e) of the existing Income Tax Assessment Act. That is something he failed to do when he was Treasurer. Senator Messner —The Commissioner enforces the law. Senator WALSH —So I do not believe that there would be any more chance of his doing it this year. I gather that Senator Messner wants section 26(e) applied. That then raises the question that if it is Mr Howard's policy to go down the section 26(e) route, for what period will he apply section 26(e)? Will it be applied retrospectively? That is a question which I hope Senator Messner will answer for us one day. Is Mr Howard proposing, in the unlikely event of his being in government, to enforce section 26(e) and to do it retrospectively? If that were to be the case, for how long would the application or the enforcement of section 26(e) be retrospective? That is one possibility. It should also be noted that Mr Howard, in making the statement he made yesterday, repudiated what his shadow Treasurer had said at the National Press Club on 20 August and what he himself said as recently as 30 July-that is, that fringe benefits would be taxed but would be taxed in another way, again implying section 26(e). He is also in direct conflict with the Leader of the National Party of Australia who I am informed said today on the front steps of Parliament House: 26(e) will remain and there has never been any suggestion that it will go. He was asked: Should any fringe benefits be taxed? He replied: Well there is already an application of some fringe benefits tax by the Tax Commissioner under 26(e). That is the system that has continued and we have not recommended any change to that. I can only say to Senator Coleman that I do not know what final conclusions one should arrive at after surveying that array of inconsistent and contradictory evidence. The conclusion that I think is the most likely is that Mr Howard has repudiated what he was saying. He has also repudiated what his shadow Treasurer said. The reason that he has done that is that he has buckled under to Andrew Hay's ultimatum that fringe benefits cannot be taxed. Senator PUPLICK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask His Excellency whether in fact-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator PUPLICK —I ask Senator Grimes whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, during the discussion of the Government's proposal to introduce an Australia Card, the Minister for Health brought to Australia a senior representative of the Swedish national tax board, Mr Lars Teghned, to advise the Government. Has the Minister also noted that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has made a number of comments indicating the favourable way in which his Government regards the operation of the Government of Sweden? I ask the Minister: Has he seen, given his particular interest in Sweden, the details of the resignation of Mr Jan Freese, the head of the Swedish Data Protection Agency who, in resigning, cited the failure of the Swedish Government and the Data Inspection Board to stop what he called `our shrinking privacy and the extremely new vulnerability' of the computer society? Will the Minister draw to the attention of the Government the fact that one of the models upon which the Government based its identity card system has now been thoroughly discredited as being impossible to maintain without unacceptable threats to the privacy of individual citizens? Senator GRIMES —I assume Senator Puplick's appellation for me means that he wants me to be Governor-General. I will quite happily accept that position. Senator Messner —Christmas Island? Senator GRIMES —The honourable senator could wish better than that for me. No, I have not had my attention drawn to the resignation of the gentleman concerned. Yes, I certainly will draw it to the attention of the Minister for Health and I will look at it myself because I am interested in what is happening in that country and in other countries. I hope that in the development of this country we can all utilise the information and the experience of countries such as Sweden. The problem is that, over the 30-odd years of conservative government, this country ignored the lessons that could have been learned from those countries. Senator HARRADINE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has his attention been drawn to the address given by Professor W. D. Borrie, a well-known demographer, to a seminar in Canberra this week on population in Australia? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statement of Professor Borrie that, in terms of population, Australia is living on borrowed time? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to Professor Borrie's statement that if society is to survive, the ultimate biological and social aim must surely be at least generation replacement? He said that the present generation of parents has a family the average size of which is likely to be the lowest on record and well below replacement levels. My question is: What will the Government do about that? Are its economic and taxation policies, which discriminate against families, consistent with the survival of society? Senator BUTTON —I do find difficult the question: `What will the Government do about that?'. Senator Grimes —We are all getting a bit old. Senator BUTTON —Senator Grimes can speak for himself; I am answering this question. I have had my attention drawn to the address by Professor Borrie. I had it drawn to my attention by Senator Harradine, who asked a question or made a comment about it in the Senate yesterday. But I have not seen what Professor Borrie said and I just accept the summation of Professor Borrie's address contained in Senator Harradine's question. I do not believe that tremendous weight can be attached to the sorts of economic factors that Senator Harradine suggests as dictating population or family behaviour in terms of desired numbers of children and so on. Of course, they must have some influence. But, if that were true, in countries of very poor economic circumstances the top priority would be to limit families; that has not been so. The point I am simply trying to make is that a whole range of issues-cultural, social, political and economic-must go into the decision as to whether people want large or small families. Certainly, when larger families existed in Australia, the economic circumstances were not necessarily better for the majority of people than they are now. Having said all that, I do not know what the Government will do about this. I would like to say that I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister, but I do not think we have one. Senator HARRADINE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In fairness to the Minister and to Professor Borrie, because Professor Borrie did advert to the widespread use of contraceptives and to sterilisation, my further question is: Will this have an impact on the Government's family planning policies? Senator BUTTON —I do not know. I do not think so. I will ask the Minister for Health about that. Senator MACKLIN —Is the Minister for Education aware that hundreds of secondary students come to Australia every year under a variety of short term exchange schemes organised by individual schools, school systems and non-government agencies, such as Rotary International, the Red Cross Society, the Young Men's Christian Association and Youth for Understanding? Will such students attending Australian schools be subject to the proposed $300 charge on overseas secondary students, no matter what the length of stay or under what scheme they come to this country? If that is the case, how does the Government propose to overcome the loss of opportunities to build important cultural bonds between young people from around the world-bonds which promote the strongest ties between countries and which will undoubtedly be harmed by this extraordinary fee impost? Senator RYAN —The decision to make a $300 charge for secondary students coming from overseas to undertake full time study here was based on the assumption that those students were coming to pursue full secondary education here analogous to the way in which overseas students pursue undergraduate or postgraduate studies. Certainly, there was no intention to discourage student exchanges of the kind to which Senator Macklin referred. Indeed, the Government supports those and believes that they serve all kinds of useful purposes for the young people concerned and for their societies. It was certainly not our intention to impose the fee on other than students who come here to pursue their secondary education in a normal formal sense. However, I will have to explore further the way in which the Bill is being drafted to ensure that that policy intention is maintained. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 September entitled `New right fires a salvo at Howard'? Is the Minister aware that in that article Mr Hay demanded that Mr Howard support the new or extreme Right's proposal for a maximum rate of tax of 30 per cent or face voter desertion at the next election? I ask: Has the Government considered the implications of a flat rate of tax? If so, what are the implications in this proposed policy for the vast majority of pay as you earn taxpayers? Senator WALSH —I am indeed aware of the ultimatum which one of the mouthpieces for the extreme Right, Mr Hay, delivered in that article on 18 September. He said, among other things: I and others have made it clear to Mr Howard that if he does not bite the bullet the conservative ground will be populated by other than the Liberal Party. The demand was for a maximum tax rate of 30 per cent. As I mentioned in answer to another question, there is already very disturbing evidence that one of Mr Hay's other ultimatums has been accepted by the present weak Leader of the Liberal Party. These demands for a flat tax and a tax of 30 per cent maximum and all that sort of thing lead me to make a couple of other comments. First, if flat tax were to be introduced and to raise the same amount of revenue as existing taxation does, everybody on a taxable income of less than about $26,000 a year would be paying more tax than at present. It should be noted that the great majority of the farmers that Ian McLachlan purports to represent have taxable incomes, according to the National Farmers Federation, of about $5,000 or $6,000, or, according to somewhat more reliable sources, such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, incomes of around $10,000; so the overwhelming majority of farmers would be worse off. This sudden fascination with a maximum tax rate of 28 per cent appears to have been prompted by recent tax changes in the United States which have been either grossly misunderstood or misrepresented. This matter is analysed in an excellent article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald by Ross Gittins. I would like to give all the details in that article, but I shall select a few of the highlights. The 28 per cent maximum rate, which is supposed to come in in the United States, does not take account of the 7.2 per cent social security levy which applies to incomes up to $62,000. It does not take account of the State income taxes which are levied in the United States. In two of the largest States, State income tax is 10 per cent. If one adds that figure, one has already got up to a 45 per cent maximum rate. Moreover-and I am sure that if this were known Mr Hay's fascination with the American system and his support for that system would be much less popular among the constituency that he apparently represents-under that system there is no provision for averaging taxation, even for farmers. Perhaps most important of all, a capital gains tax at a rate of 33 per cent is applied on nominal gains, without any allowance for inflation. As to household income, if there are two people in a household their income is aggregated for taxation purposes. In other words, virtually all of the second income, assuming that the incomes are around the average, will be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, and so on and so forth. Above all, over the next five years this tax reform package which the United States Administration is bringing in will collect an additional $194 billion in taxes from business. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to media reports that Qantas Airways Ltd has refused to show on its flights a Federal Government film warning about drug offences in many countries. I also refer him to the reported reaction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, to this decision by Qantas. Does the Government accept that statutory authorities, including Qantas, need to understand that there is such a thing as corporate morality? Secondly, has the Government sought to encourage Qantas to change its decision not to show this film? Thirdly, is it not a matter for concern that Australia's airline would decline to assist in warning travellers about the dangers of drug use in other countries? Senator BUTTON —I do not pretend to be fully familiar with all the facts of this matter, but it is a matter of immense concern to me, and I am sure to the Government, if Qantas has taken the attitude described by Senator Vanstone, which I understand it has. It is not a matter within the direct purview of my portfolio to do anything about the matter, but I shall draw the question to the attention of the appropriate Minister and see what action can be taken. I find it quite extraordinary, particularly in view of Australia's geographical situation and the very unpleasant circumstances that apply in a number of South East Asian countries involving Australians, that Qantas would be reluctant to show a film of that kind. However, I shall try to provide a more detailed answer in due course. Senator BLACK —I direct my question to the Minister for Finance. Further to my earlier questions concerning funds distributed by the Queensland Government under the natural disaster relief arrangements, has the Minister received a reply to his letter to the Queensland Premier and Treasurer? In particular, has the Minister received any information concerning a Mr Ken Morris, of Babinda, a former employee of Mr Max Menzel, the National Party member for Mulgrave? Is it a fact that Mr Morris bought a 20.6 hectare property at Babinda which had been on the market for $100,000 and yet, after Cyclone Winifred earlier this year, told the Queensland Cabinet that he had sustained $168,250 worth of damage to the property? As Mr Morris was pictured in the local paper with what he claimed was his fruit damaged by the cyclone but what I have been advised was fruit from another grower's farm 40 kilometres away, can the Minister check whether his damage claim was as reliable as his claims about the source of his damaged fruit? Senator WALSH —I do not believe I can answer all the questions or sub-questions asked by Senator Black. The first one-whether I have received a reply from the Queensland Premier-I certainly can answer. The answer to that is no, I have not. There are clear indications that the Premier has no intention of supplying the information that has been requested. He was quoted yesterday in the Queensland Press as having said that he did not even know what information the Commonwealth wants. It is set out clearly in the letter I sent to him. It is simply a comprehensive list of natural disaster relief arrangement loans which have been made over the last three years and identifies those individual cases in which the recommendations of the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board have been overturned politically. In regard to Mr Morris, I will write to the Premier again, seeking either confirmation or correction of the statements made by Senator Black, but I am not optimistic about getting an answer. There is some circumstantial support for the facts being as Senator Black's inquiries have revealed; that is, that Mr Morris was a former employee of Max Menzel, the National Party member for Mulgrave, and Mr Menzel has publicly boasted that he has had hundreds of Rural Reconstruction Board recommendations overturned. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with Mr Menzel's boast and provides some circumstantial evidence. If I cannot get an answer from the Premier, I suppose I could try writing to Mr Menzel, but I would not be optimistic about getting a reply there either. Senator COLLARD —Why did the Minister for Veterans' Affairs authorise the Federal Police and a Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs handwriting expert to examine a media release and attachment issued by the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, on 22 May last? Is it a fact that the investigation took place without reference to or without any attempt to seek handwriting examples from Mr Fischer, who has stated categorically in another place that the writing is his own? Will the Minister table the full report of the handwriting expert from the Immigration Department, Mr P. D. Westwood? Senator GIETZELT —Towards the end of May the Department of Veterans' Affairs organised a function at the Australian War Memorial for the purpose of proclaiming the Veterans' Entitlements Act. While the function was taking place, the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs attacked me and the function, claiming that it was a misuse of the Australian War Memorial to use it for that purpose. He ignored the fact that Sir William Keys, Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, the Secretary to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and I were the speakers and the function was not at all political. It was an attempt to explain to the new recipients under the Veterans' Entitlements Act the benefits that were to be conferred on them. The shadow Minister, in his Press statement, said that he had received certain documents from senior levels of the Australian War Memorial. I drew the attention of the Chairperson of the Australian War Memorial to the shadow Minister's Press release but, as she was going on holiday to a Pacific island, I called in the Director of the Memorial to give an explanation. I asked him for the facts and whether he was in any way involved in the preparation of the Press release relating to the function. The Press release came from a staff bulletin within the Australian War Memorial and distributed in the day prior to the holding of the function. The Director informed me that he was in no way responsible for the use of the words that the function was being held at the direction of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. At that time I had in front of me a copy of the minute that had been approved by the Director, with the Director's own handwriting on it, in which he had inserted on the draft Press statement the words `as a result of a ministerial direction'. As it turned out, he had lied to me about that document. Naturally I took certain steps to check on the veracity or otherwise of the words that were written on the staff bulletin and the minute associated with it. That was the catalyst which brought to a head a number of matters which had been causing me concern over a period and brought to my attention the need to examine more carefully the administrative deficiencies and problems associated with the War Memorial. It is true that the Director sent me a letter dated the following day in which he admitted that he had misled me; that he had checked the files and found that he had placed on the draft minute the words `as a result of a ministerial direction'. He apologised to me. I find it indefensible that if the Director had misled me-and he admitted that he had-he did not take steps that evening or the following day, when I was still in Canberra, to rectify the position. It was not until four days after my meeting with the Director at which I sought an explanation that my office and the office of the Chairman of the Repatriation Commission, Mr Volker, received a copy of the Director's retraction of the evidence that he had placed before me. Naturally I was entitled to-and promptly did-invoke the support of the Australian Federal Police in respect of these matters in view of the Director's earlier denial. I also brought the matter to the attention of a handwriting expert in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Senator COLLARD —I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister table the full report of the handwriting expert? Senator GIETZELT —I am not prepared to table any documents at this stage or until the investigation has been completed. Senator GIETZELT —During Question Time Senator MacGibbon asked me a question about my reactions to the difficulties referred to with the Director of the Australian War Memorial, Air Vice-Marshal Flemming. I table the document relating to the response required of me from the chairperson of the Australian War Memorial which indicates that I have acted today following the unanimous decision by the Council of the Australian War Memorial yesterday. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator COLEMAN —Mr President, during Question Time Senator Walters asked a question about an incident which occurred while I was occupying your chair earlier today. At that time the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) used the term `sleazebags opposite'. After one member of the Opposition had risen and claimed a point of order, I ruled that there was no point of order because I had misheard what the Minister said. It is important to quote what occurred at the time and I have asked Hansard to let me have the `pinks' for this particular episode. Unfortunately they have not arrived as yet. When I ruled that there was no point of order and the Minister rose again, the first words that he said were that he would be happy to withdraw that statement if it bothered Senator Walters or other senators opposite. When the `pinks' arrive from Hansard, we will be able to verify that. I do not have that evidence in front of me at the moment. However it is important that Senator Walters recognise that the Minister did withdraw the statement to which she took exception. Senator Walters —I have the Hansard `pinks' here. Senator COLEMAN —Well, I do not have the Hansard `pinks' showing those interjections, Senator, and I doubt very much that you would have them. Senator Walters —Are you saying that I am lying? Senator COLEMAN —I am not saying that you are lying, Senator Walters, but if you want to have a stand-up fight, I am quite happy to have it here and now. Let me assure the Senate that at the time I ruled that, there was no point of order. I have told the Senate that I ruled that there was no point of order. I do not deny that and I have no intention of denying that. I am also stating that when the Minister stood up immediately following that ruling of mine he said that he was quite prepared to withdraw that remark if it bothered senators opposite. Senator Michael Baume —That is not an unqualified withdrawal. Senator COLEMAN —I am sorry, Senator, but if you want the words `those sleazebags opposite' to be repeated-you are giving me the opportunity to use that same phrase again; that was the phrase the Minister used, `those sleazebags opposite'-I will continue to use it. If the honourable senator wants a great deal of publicity to be given to the phrase `sleazebags opposite', that is exactly what he is getting. I am telling the Senate that I misunderstood the use of the term in the first instance and it was not until I was corrected by the Clerk that I realised, by which time the Minister, then back on his feet, had suggested that he was quite happy to withdraw that statement if it bothered senators opposite. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement. Leave granted. Senator WALTERS —Obviously there has been a mistake made by the attendants-a human mistake that all of us could make at some time. The Hansard copy was delivered to me rather than to Senator Coleman. I had no idea until two seconds ago when Hansard said: `I am terribly sorry, I have given them to you, Senator Walters'. When I offered to come across to show Senator Coleman, I had no idea they were meant for her. I thought they were meant for me. Senator Coleman —No, Senator Walters, I asked for it. Senator WALTERS —That is right. I am just telling the honourable senator that the attendant had just that second come to me and said: `Look, we were meant to give that to Senator Coleman'. I said: `Fine, I will explain the situation'. When I offered to show them to Senator Coleman I was completely unaware that they were meant to go to her, because I wanted them too. I will read from the Hansard. The Minister said: These sleazebags in the Opposition have moved this Clayton's amendment-- Senator Michael Baume raised a point of order. He said: On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: The word `sleazebags' has been made popular in the other place by the Treasurer. As I understand it, it is not a parliamentary phrase. I find it objectionable and I ask that it be withdrawn. The Hansard continues: The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —As I understand it, the word was not directed at the Opposition- Senator Coleman has explained that today- That being the case, there is no point of order. Senator Robertson —It was used in a collective sense- So he heard the interjection correctly, or heard the comment correctly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I suggest that there is no point of order- that is even though Senator Robertson had said: `It was used in a collective sense'- but I request Senator Walsh to moderate his language and be attentive to the desires of the Senate. It was only then that Senator Walsh said: Certainly, Madam Acting Deputy President. He continued on in the same way-- Senator Elstob —Who is Steve Martin? Senator WALTERS —That is what we all asked at the time. He continued: If Steve Martin or Steve Baume, or whatever false identity he is presently using, finds that offensive, I am happy to withdraw it. He did not withdraw unqualifiedly, neither was he asked to withdraw. My question today is: `Are we really going to sink to the same depths as the place opposite?'. The PRESIDENT —Having heard the two statements, I repeat that I have no knowledge of the incident that took place this morning. After opening the Senate, I was in long discussion with the Speaker of the House of Representatives about the administration of the Parliament. However, I take this opportunity to urge all honourable senators to remember the rights of senators and citizens of Australia and also the obligations of senators to this place. I ask all honourable senators to remember that the use of unnecessary language in this place does nothing to add to, indeed detracts from, the proper recognition of the Parliament by the public at large and, in my opinion, brings the Parliament into disrepute. I ask all honourable senators to bear that in mind when they are making statements in this place, especially of other senators. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —by leave-This matter has become a bit complicated because `Senator Walters' is written on the back of the Hansard copy. So it certainly was not the attendant's fault, it was obviously Hansard's fault. Hansard sent the copy to me. Senator WATSON(Tasmania) —I seek leave to make a statement. Senator Walsh —Mr President, can I claim your indulgence to ask whether Senator Watson is claiming to have been misrepresented? That is the usual ground on which leave is automatically granted. If, on the other hand, as I understand he wants to, he wants to incorporate some sleazy analysis of the application of a capital gains tax which some of the Liberal Party propagandists have prepared, I do not believe he should get leave. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Watson has sought leave to make a statement. It is custom and practice for a senator, if asked, to indicate the subject of the statement. Senator WATSON —Thank you, Mr President. In seeking the leave of the Senate I believe the Senate has a duty to seek to clarify certain issues where a misleading situation could have been created. I believe we had that situation this afternoon when there was some confusion in the response given by the Minister in an answer to a question on the capital gains tax. We acknowledge that the capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax are anomalous and difficult to interpret; but there has been great concern in the community because of differences between-- Senator Grimes —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is quite clear that Senator Watson is trying to make a speech about an answer that was given in Question Time. If that is allowed in this place we will have people jumping up and trying to make speeches about answers given by Ministers endlessly each afternoon. I do not think it is a good idea; I do not think it is a good precedent. Mr President, I ask you to consider what Senator Watson is about. The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask Senator Watson to indicate the matter upon which he seeks leave to make a statement before I put the question whether leave should be granted. Does the honourable senator intend to indicate the subject on which he seeks leave to make a statement? Senator WATSON —I believe I have already indicated the area of my concern. If time is a constraint for the Minister, I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard at least 12 circumstances in which the principal private residence is subject to tax. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Watson sought leave, in the first instance, to make a statement. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted for Senator Watson to incorporate the material in Hansard? Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that I have had a statement prepared on Senate information systems in the new Parliament House. Copies of the statement have been distributed in the chamber. With the agreement of the Senate I propose to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- I inform the Senate that, in accordance with the Department of the Senate's information systems strategic plan as approved by the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, the Department issued on 23 June 1986 a request for tender for the supply, installation and maintenance of computer-based systems for the Senate in the new Parliament House. The aim of the process is the selection and implementation of a Senate network in the new Parliament House. This network will eventually provide integrated communications, word processing, information storage and retrieval, data processing, electronic publishing and printing services for senators and the Department. Equipment currently being issued to senators in Parliament House will be able to use the services available on the network. Because of the direction issued by Madam Speaker, her predecessor and myself that compatibility of systems across parliamentary departments and between senators' and members' equipment be ensured, each parliamentary department has been invited to incorporate within the tender process its requirements for office automation and communications facilities and to participate in the subsequent evaluation of tender responses. These invitations have been accepted and the result will be a single office automation environment for the whole of the Parliament. This result will ensure maximum compatibility between all Parliament House systems. The request for tender is based on networking and information storage and retrieval studies which have taken place over many years. The document incorporates the recommendations of the joint working group which determined the cabling direction for the new Parliament House in 1984. That working group comprised the five parliamentary departments, the Parliament House Construction Authority, the secretariat of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House and the network engineering consultants Crooks, Michell, Peacock and Stewart. The document also incorporates the results of a two-year pilot study of free text information storage and retrieval techniques conducted jointly by the five parliamentary departments through their information systems interdepartmental committee. During the past 12 months, the Department of the Senate has undertaken exhaustive studies not only to determine the user requirements which necessarily determine the substance of the request for tender, but also to equip itself with as much knowledge as would ensure that these requirements would be comprehensively and realistically translated and incorporated into tender specifications for hardware, software, training, maintenance and support services. To compile this information the Department conducted extensive surveys of senators, their staffs, and departmental officers. In addition, independent assessments of requirements were made by Coopers and Lybrand, W. D. Scott and Housley Communications, consultants. The Housley Communications consultants work covered the communications requirements of all parliamentary departments. The major requirements of senators and members include the ability to communicate effectively with their electorate offices. Also during this period, two departmental officers travelled overseas to study information systems developments relevant to Parliament's requirements. They visited parliamentary sites where relevant information systems have been implemented, interviewed incumbent equipment and software suppliers and, in particular, assessed the networking and information storage and retrieval standards which the Parliament has adopted. Last but by no means least, I inform the Senate that the request for tender issued by the Department offers Australian industry real opportunities. The document encourages part tenders from Australian companies in their own right and the complex task of marrying Australian components into the overall solution will not be evaded. Departmental officers are seeking high Australia-content equipment from Australian companies, and suppliers tendering in respect of the new Parliament House are aware of this approach. The Department has been in continuing contact with the Australian Computer Equipment Manufacturers Association and the Australian Software Industry Association and has extended the closing date of the tender at their request. I believe that the path followed by the Department of the Senate with the full co-operation of the other parliamentary departments will ensure a most cost effective implementation of information systems for the Senate in the new building whilst at the same time maximising the opportunity for Australian industry involvement. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Finance and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to Public Service reforms and to incorporate the statement in Hansard. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —No. Senator WALSH —The statement is about 20 pages. It will take up about 40 minutes. Obviously members of the Opposition have nothing better to do than to sit around in the Senate when they-- Senator Durack —Think of these things when you make your decisions. Senator WALSH —If Senator Durack thinks- The PRESIDENT-Order! The situation is getting completely out of hand. I ask the Minister to proceed with the statement if he intends to do so. Senator WALSH —Today the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced in the House of Representatives a range of decisions taken by the Government to give effect to the Government's commitment to improve the efficiency of the public sector. These decisions are an essential part of the restructuring of the Australian economy which has been made necessary by the decline of international commodity prices and their consequent effects on our economic circumstances. That restructuring must involve all sectors of the Australian economy including the public sector. No modern economy trading in world markets can survive without a strong integrated Public Service, capable of assisting and facilitating industries to achieve national economic objectives. The Australian Public Service must be able to take its place in the rebuilding of our manufacturing and industrial sectors required by Australia's present economic and social circumstances and our national aspirations. I seek leave to have the remainder of the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator WALSH —I terminate the statement. Senator Walters —Mr President, I seek clarification as to the status of the statement by the Prime Minister, copies of which have been handed around the Senate. As Senator Walsh is not making the statement and it will not go into Hansard, are we to return the copies to the attendants? Senator Walsh —The Government is under no obligation in this regard. It was a courtesy to the Senate to present the statement here, but I am not going to waste 40 minutes reading it out. However, I will table it. The PRESIDENT —The Minister has tabled a document. Senator Chaney —I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the document. Leave not granted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.23) —I move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Chaney from moving a motion to take note of the paper. I have moved this motion, not because I like to see the time of the Senate wasted but because we have again today been subjected to the rudeness for which the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, is now notorious. His repeating of the expression which was the subject of discussion for some minutes after Question Time was typical of the contempt with which he treats the whole of this institution, including the Chair. The Minister, after treating the chamber with contempt, then expected to be able to follow, by leave, whatever procedure met his convenience. Clearly, that was quite unacceptable to the Opposition. I simply hark back to your own words, Mr President, after the exchanges with respect to the ruling in your absence, when you drew attention to the reputation and, indeed, the operation of this place. There can be no obligation on the Government to read a statement, but it is long established practice that major statements that are made in the other place are also made in the Senate. Once again, the Minister simply shows his contempt, both for practice and for this place, in refusing to deal with the matter which is before us. It is an important matter, the matter of Public Service reforms, and no doubt the Senate should be given an opportunity at least to have it placed on the Notice Paper so that it can be considered and debated at a later time, although there might be some opportunity for a minor debate today. The simple fact of the matter is that the Government has, once again, allowed its program to get completely out of kilter. The Minister has greatly prolonged debate on the Bills to which we were asked to give priority this week because they were required to be brought into operation this month. The Opposition has given its full co-operation in that matter and we have seen delays caused by the Minister and extension of the debate-an extremely abusive extension of debate at that-which was quite unnecessary. The Estimates Committee sittings have now been pushed back, no doubt at the great inconvenience of departments and, of course, individual senators and officers of the Parliament. In this situation, the Senate is being run in a way which I think reflects great discredit upon it. I am seeking to suspend Standing Orders simply to ensure that the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) can be dealt with in the Senate in the normal way, despite the quite childish behaviour of the Minister in recent days and today in particular. I trust that this motion will have the support of the Senate and that we can now proceed to deal with this matter in an orderly, albeit brief, way. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.25) —The Australian Democrats would be inclined to support the suspension of Standing Orders unless it is possible for some genius at the table to come up with a method by which we can unravel the schoolboyish games-I use the terminology advisedly-that have led to this absurd situation. Is there not a method by which we can go back to the statement that started all of this, have it incorporated in Hansard and then give the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) and me the opportunity to make at least a couple of remarks on the contents of what is, in essence, a fairly important statement emanating from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)? If we cannot go through some process such as that, we will certainly support the motion for suspension, not because we believe that the Opposition has been blameless in all of this-because it has not-but simply in order to get some statements of response into Hansard. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(3.26) —It seems to me that the most sensible thing to do in this situation, which, as honourable senators on both sides have said, does not do much credit to this place, is to pass the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. If it is desired, I will seek leave to have the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) incorporated in Hansard. I must make the point, though, not wishing to stir things up, that for people to say that all this is due to the behaviour of Senator Walsh today and on other days is absolute nonsense. I am not trying to cause trouble, but I point out that Senator Watson today clearly tried to misuse the procedures of this House. Senator Mason —It was a good try. Senator GRIMES —It was a good try but it did not succeed. Surely no one in this place expected either Senator Walsh or me to give Senator Watson leave to have incorporated in Hansard something we had not seen, or to allow him, after Question Time, to debate a question. Surely no one expected that. That is what led to the failure to allow Senator Walsh to have the statement incorporated. I am certainly happy for the Senate to pass the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and get on with the business of taking note of the statement. If people feel, as I do, that the statement should be incorporated in Hansard, I will seek leave to have it incorporated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.28) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I make the point that the weapons available to the Opposition against unreasonable behaviour by the Government are few. In this case, the unreasonable behaviour of which I complained had nothing to do with the refusal of leave to Senator Watson. That is not a matter about which I complained or about which I took any action. The refusal of leave to Senator Walsh related to the treatment afforded the Opposition by him, which is consistent with the sort of behaviour from which I thought, Mr President, you had asked us to desist just a few minutes beforehand. I simply say to the Government that the normal granting of leave in this place will continue in circumstances where we do not see the Government abusing its many rights and privileges in this place. Consistent with the position that I took in response to Senator Walsh, I have no intention of agreeing to the incorporation of that statement in Hansard today. The statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is in fact a statement of good intentions. I can only say that there is a lot of truth in the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There is nothing in this statement which indicates that the Government is taking clear and firm action in the direction that was predicted by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, in his address to the nation on 11 June, said: . . . under successive Governments, including my own, the federal public service has continued, inexorably, to grow in numbers. He said that the Government would take steps to halt this expansion to produce a leaner, more efficient Service. He said that there `will be a streamlining and rationalisation of some existing functions and agencies'. There is nothing in this statement which suggests a streamlining and rationalisation of existing functions and agencies-far from it. So the Prime Minister has, in fact, not lived up to his words; there is no streamlining and rationalisation of existing functions and agencies brought forward in this statement. The statement has been brought down after a period of great growth in the Commonwealth Public Service. There has been record growth in the Public Service under the present Administration. It has averaged 3.5 per cent per annum, with just under 15,000 new positions from when the Government came into office up to 1985-86. So this Government has added 14,941 employees to the Commonwealth payroll, there has been an average growth of 3.5 per cent per annum and now we are faced with this statement of the Government's intentions. The statement talks about reductions in the Public Service. If one looks at the statement one finds statements about savings which are being made. I refer to page 5 where it says: As an initial step in reaping the benefits of past efficiency improvements, the Government has also acted in this year's Budget to realise a general saving of 0.5 per cent in average staffing levels of departments and agencies. A general saving of 0.5 per cent in average staffing levels is something which we might welcome. But when one reads the next paragraph of the statement one finds that the actual result this year will be to have a rise in the size of the Public Service, not a fall. The statement goes on to say: As already announced in the Budget, as a result of these processes and some specific staffing decisions, average staffing levels for 1986-87 will rise by only 0.3 per cent above the average level for 1985-86, excluding the effects of the Census and the additional component for youth trainees. In this statement the Government talks about a cut in the Public Service and a decline of 2,000 in the number of public servants, but in fact is budgeting for, and tells us in this statement that there will be, a rise in the number of public servants. So, in fact, all this statement represents is an attempt to prune back some of the growth which would otherwise have been projected. It really is a farce. One is reminded of the words which were attributed to St Augustine: `Lord, make me pure, but not yet'. We have a promise for the pruning of the Public Service and, at the same time, a growth in the Public Service. An examination of this statement makes it quite clear that what we have here is simply a series of measures which the Government is proposing and which it says will ultimately lead to the Public Service operating in a more efficient way. That is quite clear, again on the face of the document itself. On page 12 of the statement which has been tabled it is said that: Many of the measures I have referred to will require legislation, and others will require detailed guidelines and procedures. The statement goes on to say: In those cases requiring only administrative action, I have asked the Public Service Board to proceed as a matter of urgency. The sad fact of the matter is that all of this is projected action. None of it involves the Government coming in and saying: `As a result of this decision we are able to say that there will be a reduction in the need for public servants. There is a removal of a certain number of places which have to be funded by the taxpayer'. The whole summary of the statement makes that quite clear. The whole thing is a statement of intentions for the future, and the record of this Government is one which gives one very little cause for confidence that the good intentions will be followed. If we look, for example, at the promises about efficiency dividends, we see that we have various undertakings being given by the Government that it will insist on departments making efficiency improvements; it will entitle departments to keep some of the benefits of those improvements to further improve the operation of departments, but that it will expect the taxpayer to get some reduced burden because of improved efficiency. All that I can say is that I think those words will provide a very good brief for future Estimates committees to pursue the Government to ensure that some action has been taken, because I think that, on the face of it, it is extremely unlikely that action will be taken in the form which has been predicted. Looking at the whole series of statements which have been made on page 2 of the statement, such as the future establishment of an efficiency scrutiny unit and the fact that in future departments will be required to cut their administrative expenses in each year, I can only say again that there is nothing in the Government's record which would give anyone grounds for hope. The Prime Minister's statement that the Government would be doing something about Public Service matters was made in June. Since then the Government has brought down its Budget and we find in that Budget-I refer only to the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, which is the Department that I have most carefully scrutinised-that the overall administrative expenses of that department, the Department which is presided over by Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, are up by 19.6 per cent. It is very impressive to be told by the Government that it is about to reduce administrative expenses and that it is about to do something about this terrifically increased administrative burden, but we find that in the Department of the Leader of the Government administrative expenses in one year have gone up by nearly 20 per cent. The inflation factor-the factor which the Government allowed to simply have constant administrative costs-was 6.9 per cent. So we have here a real growth of something like 13 per cent in that Department alone. How is it, when these reforms were promised in June and the Budget was brought down in August, and this statement is produced in September, that the Government can come into this place and, with a straight face, suggest that it will have this wonderful approach to administrative expenses when in the Department of the Leader of the Government in the Senate we find that the administrative expenses have gone up by 19.6 per cent? In the Australian Customs Service, which is another part of the Minister's responsibilities, we find administrative costs up by 12.8 per cent-once again, something like a 6 per cent increase over and above the constant level that one would expect if the Government were even trying to prevent administrative expansion. So the Opposition is not vaguely impressed by the Government's statement. It is too vague. It totally fails to live up to the Prime Minister's promise that there would be a streamlining and rationalisation of functions and agencies. There is nothing in this tabled statement which refers to the rationalisation of functions and agencies; there is no more than a statement of broad intentions. Mr President, I pose the question for you, as somebody who had the job of working with a Senate committee on the Estimates for the Parliament, and the Senate in particular, whether you were given the room to expand your administrative costs by 19.6 per cent. I just wonder what sorts of rules the Government has because my recollection of the efforts of the Senate to deal with its own expenditure is that we conscientiously tried to remain within guidelines which prevented any growth in expenditure, yet we find a department being entitled to have a 19.6 per cent increase in administrative expenses. I put that, Mr President, as the context within which we respond with considerable cynicism to the statements of intention which are contained in this paper, because the Government's record is that it has produced nearly 15,000 extra Public Service positions over its first three years. The Government's record is that it has introduced record expenditure and record taxation. The Government's record is-I think this will be found in other areas of the Estimates-that the benefits which have flowed through to the people of Australia have been watched with some care by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), but the administrative expenses of departments have been allowed to grow in a way which is out of line with the sorts of Budget guidelines which I certainly thought this Government was imposing. I think that this is part of the Government's attempt to use the rhetoric which fits the mood of the moment. There is no sign, however, that the Government intends to bite the bullet. We find nothing in this statement, for example, about the reintroduction of the `no work as directed no pay' provision. I remind the Senate that earlier this year public servants held nearly $1 billion of taxpayers money out of the banking system at very great cost to the taxpayers and the Commonwealth and the probable cost of increased interest rates-a situation which is quite intolerable. The Government has left itself without the reasonable weapons that a government requires to deal with that sort of anti-public interest behaviour by public servants. I think in that circumstance we actually had the Government going off to the arbitration authorities to seek the temporary reintroduction of a `no work as directed no pay' provision within the award. The failure of the Government to come to grips with that most elementary requirement of public servants, namely, that they should do the work for which they are employed and not pick and choose and decide that in the pursuit of their own industrial objectives they will refuse to obey the lawful commands of their employers, shows how threadbare is the Government's approach to this problem. It is worth pondering that dispute of early this year. I know that many honourable senators opposite have had long industrial experience and they would have a great attachment to the importance of access to arbitration in situations of dispute. I remind them of the activities of some public servants who have refused to accept the decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; they have engaged in strike activity in contravention of their access to that machinery, and the Government has left itself without weapons to look after the public interest in that circumstance in which the rules are being flouted by the people who are paid at public expense to look after the concerns and interests of the people of Australia. This is an important statement. Many of the statements of intention are consistent with the views that have been urged by the Opposition upon the Government. We welcome the extent to which the Government has embraced objectives which we think are in the national interest, as we have defined them. It is a matter of deep disappointment to the Opposition that there is so little substance in this statement. Nothing in it says to the people of Australia or this chamber `Here are the things which the Government is definitely doing and which will do something now about inefficiency, overmanning and excesses' which the statement concedes exist. It is, therefore, a very disappointing statement, and I look forward to the opportunity to debate it more fully at some future time. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator HAINES(South Australia-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-Despite the debacle that went on a little while ago and the fact that, as Senator Chaney indicated, this is more a statement of intention from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) than an outline of a program of works or legislation, the Australian Democrats welcome the statement, as indeed we would welcome any measures that are intended to improve the efficiency of the Public Service. Unlike the Opposition, however, we are not in favour of doing things such as randomly and unscientifically slashing Public Service ceiling levels or staff numbers generally; nor do we favour the theory of allegedly increasing efficiency in the public sector by privatising bodies such as Australia Post and Telecom Australia. That sort of privatisation policy really amounts to selling off the profitable parts of public utilities, leaving the Government to continue to provide to the public those services from which the private sector cannot wring a profit and which essentially must therefore have their costs borne by the public purse, that is, Consolidated Revenue or taxpayers' contributions. Telephone and postal services to areas which are isolated and which generally are represented by members of the National Party of Australia, for example, would fall into that sort of category. As I said, we welcome the measures, such as they are, that are contained in the statement that was tabled earlier this afternoon. Indeed, we would have welcomed them a decade ago because these measures are not only necessary but also long overdue. On page 4 of the statement we are informed: . . . to encourage more economical and efficient use of funds provided to them, Departments and agencies will be permitted, in effect, to carry over unused administrative funds from one year to the next, subject to a limit on the amount of carryover. This will remove the incentive to try to spend all remaining funds at the end of each financial year, and should result in a more rational and efficient allocation of resources. Departments and agencies also will be given greater freedom to move funds between their Salaries and Administrative Expenses votes, where this would lead to greater efficiency. We would certainly applaud that. There has been no greater absurdity, I would suggest, in the funding of departments than the requirement that all funds be expended prior to the end of the financial year or face forfeiture. I recall raising a somewhat similar matter in this place in 1978, in the days when Federal funding to the Department of Education was done on an annual basis and we saw spending splurges at the end of each year by schools as they acted, sometimes with no rationality at all, to spend the money that had been allocated to them because, if they did not, the allocation for the following year would not be as large. There was no capacity for them to carry over money, to use it efficiently or even particularly effectively. It is worth noting that the Government is flagging the fact that it will take a much more rational attitude to the sorts of funding of departments that we have seen in the past. It is also worth noting that, while departments are to be given greater flexibility in the expenditure of their funds, they will also be expected to do better with less. In the words of the Prime Minister, they will have to work harder, work smarter and give more value for money. That again is something that the general public and certainly those in this chamber and another place would welcome. Presumably to encourage this, an efficiency unit is to be established under the direction of Mr David Block, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. It is too early to tell whether all of this is simply another symbolic exercise that has been inadequately thought out and underresourced or whether we can expect the sorts of results that would be equivalent to those that occurred in the United States of America of something like 2.3 per cent annual savings. I hope it is not, as Senator Chaney indicated, just a bit of window dressing from which nothing much will eventuate. Mind you, I would suggest that 2.3 per cent annual savings sounds a fairly major achievement after nine years, at least in the context of other measures outlined in this statement. On page 5, for example, we are told that departments will be required to reduce their expenditure by one per cent each year in the next three years starting in 1987-88. That is three times the United Kingdom rate. Setting an arbitrary figure of one per cent savings per year may be good for the deficit-I am sure that is the main rationale behind this-but it is unlikely to be conducive to rational restructuring of the Public Service. We also note that streamlining of the processes of promotion, redeployment and dismissal is long overdue. It is difficult to see, for instance, how anyone could reasonably disagree with the statement that the Prime Minister makes on page 7 of the statement that the Secretary to a department will be able to retire staff from the Service when, after they have been warned and given an opportunity to improve their performance, the Secretary is satisfied that they have remained inefficient. The Public Service, one presumes, ought not to be a haven for people who cannot get work anywhere else; nor should it be perceived as that when I do not believe it is. Any steps that this Government takes to ensure that it does not become such a thing or that public perceptions increase are to be welcomed. It is to be hoped that the spirit of co-operation which characterised the Australian Council of Trade Unions and employer groups meeting on management practices will extend to reform of the Public Service. The Democrats look forward to an early introduction of the necessary legislative changes in a form that I hope we can support. I repeat that I hope it does not degenerate into what Senator Chaney suggested it could well do; that is, some kind of substitute for action or a bit more of the rhetoric which has come from this Government and which it has been expected could substitute for its doing anything positive to correct the problems that face it. The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 9b (2) of the Public Service Act I present a report on the operation of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for the year ended 30 June 1986. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —On behalf of the President and in accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit dated 25 September 1986. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the sixteenth report of the Publications Committee. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria) —I present the 254th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, entitled `Project DESINE-Proposed Computer Acquisition by the Department of Defence'. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. I seek leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This report presents the findings of the Committee's examination of several proposed computing acquisitions, including those for Project DESINE, by the Department of Defence. This set of proposals from the Department of Defence is the third, and by far the largest, acquisition proposal received by the Committee to date under its standing reference to examine and report on proposed acquisitions of Automatic Data Processing facilities by Commonwealth departments and authorities staffed under the Public Service Act 1922. The Defence submission to the Committee resulted from a Cabinet decision in December 1985 which gave in principle approval to the proposals. However Cabinet did not give approval for any procurement action or expenditure of funds, pending a favourable report from the Committee. The Defence proposals are both large and complex. The largest of these proposals, Project DESINE, will involve the expenditure of more than $300 million including the costs of 3,300 man years of development effort over the next 10 years. The Department of Defence proposes to do three things under Project DESINE: To decentralise its administrative computing systems and to establish a standard computing environment for those systems (the DESINE Strategy); To implement two major redevelopment projects, called the Supply and the Manpower Systems Redevelopment Projects, under the DESINE Strategy; and To establish a five year period contract with a prime contractor to establish a standard computing environment and to supply equipment and software for these major redevelopment projects. The Committee's examination of the Project DESINE proposals has focused on five major issues: Project cost/benefit justification; Technical risks; Australian industry participation; Proposed method of acquisition; and Staff resources required. The Committee's examination of these issues has led it to recommend that a phased implementation and procurement strategy be adopted for Project DESINE. The Committee concludes that, given the size, complexity and duration of the DESINE redevelopment projects, the only satisfactory approach is to plan, cost/benefit justify, obtain funding approval and implement each sub- project of the DESINE projects in turn. The initiation of each sub-project should be considered in the light of a review of the preceding sub-projects. This should allow the effective monitoring of both the expenditure on, and the benefits resulting from, these projects. The Committee therefore recommends that: The Department of Defence not procure implementation quantities of equipment for each major sub-project of the Supply and Manpower Systems Redevelopment Projects or any other projects to be implemented under Project DESINE until: The planning, systems definitions and cost-benefit studies necessary to define and justify these sub-projects, have been completed; The Secretary of the Department of Defence has endorsed each of these sub-projects in turn and the funds necessary to implement them; and A submission dealing with these sub- projects has been made to the Committee under its standing reference to examine and report on ADP acquisition proposals over $5 million. The first of these sub-projects is likely to be the Depot/Base sub-project of the Supply Systems Redevelopment Project which will involve approximately $30 million capital expenditure. The Committee also recommends that: The Department of Defence provide an annual progress report to the Department of Finance and this Committee which summarises progress to date on Project DESINE and its component projects against agreed plans. This report will detail: The benefits achieved in comparison with those initially asserted at the time of project approval; the costs incurred to date in comparison with those initially asserted; the degree of Australian industry participation achieved; and the proposed expenditure for DESINE projects for the following financial year. The Department of Defence also intends to let a single, five year period contract as part of Project DESINE, for the supply of two things: a `network architecture' which will provide the basis for its computing standards; and subsequently, implementation quantities of equipment and software conforming with those standards. The Committee is recommending a two-stage tendering process be employed to ensure the supply of a satisfactory `network architecture' and the establishment of satisfactory standard, before large quantities of equipment are purchased. This will minimise the risk of major cost overruns should difficulties be experienced improving the `network architecture' and establishing satisfactory computing standards. A two-stage tendering arrangement will also increase competition in the tendering for these separate supply requirements and will increase the opportunities for Australian firms to participate. Although a two-stage tendering process may involve some additional administrative costs, it need not cause any delay to the main implementation phase of the Supply and Manpower Systems Redevelopment Projects. The Committee believes that any additional costs and small delays in the early stages of Project DESINE will be more than justified by the reduced risk, greater competition and greater opportunities for Australian industry participation which will result. The Committee believes that Project DESINE offers a major opportunity for government purchasing to contribute to the development of a technologically advanced, innovative and competitive computing industry in Australia. It has therefore recommended that special measures be taken, above and beyond the application of Australian purchasing preference and offsets policies, to ensure that this opportunity is not missed and that a satisfactory level of Australian industry participation is achieved in the DESINE contracts. The Committee therefore recommends that: Part tendering arrangements be adopted in the major implementation phase of Project DESINE to increase the prospects for Australian industry participation in the supply of specific categories of equipment and software; In addition to the enforcement of the Australian purchasing preference and offsets policies, the level of Australian industry participation be a specific criterion in the evaluation of tenders for the DESINE contracts; The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services participate in the weighting of this evaluation criterion and review the level of Australian industry participation in the recommended tenders before contracts are let; and If a satisfactory level of Australian industry participation cannot be agreed at Departmental level, the matter be referred to the responsible Ministers for decision. The Committee has also reviewed the two other, and quite separate, proposals contained in the Department of Defence's submission to purchase computing equipment for the Office of Defence Production and to establish a period contract for the purchase of small, stand-alone computing systems. The Committee has given qualified support to the proposed procurement for the Office of Defence Production. It is recommending that the tendering for new equipment for the Office of Defence Production be expedited as quickly as possible. However the Committee is not convinced of the justification for the proposed purchase of a $1.85 million second hand computer to provide interim computing capacity until such time as new equipment is purchased. The requirement for this interim capacity has arisen because of a two and half year delay in the provision of suitable accommodation for a warehoused computer already owned by the Office and capable of meeting all its interim requirements. The Committee will be investigating further the reasons for this extended delay, in its current inquiry into the Administration of Commonwealth Property Functions. The Committee believes that the small, stand-alone systems proposal was included in the Defence submission as something of a sop, to compensate for the very limited opportunities offered to Australian firms in the DESINE and Office of Defence Production contracts initially proposed by Defence. However the level of use proposed for this stand-alone, systems contract has not been specified by Defence, and hence the level of benefits to a successful Australian tenderer is also unspecified and uncertain. The Committee is convinced that the alternative arrangements which it has proposed for the DESINE procurements will provide far better prospects for Australian industry participation in the supply of equipment and software to the Department of Defence. The Committee also notes that there are adequate, alternative means available to the Department to procure small, stand-alone computing systems and that the establishment of a new period contract for the supply of such equipment to the Department of Defence is not justified. The Committee issued guidelines for submissions under its standing reference, and invited comments from Departments on these, in May 1985. It has to date received no comments and can only assume that Departments consider these guidelines to be satisfactory. The Committee itself has identified some areas of deficiency and of potential improvement in the guidelines. It now intends, with the benefit of its experience of the three inquiries it has now completed under the reference, to issue revised guidelines which will, it hopes, assist departments to prepare better submissions and therefore expedite the process of the Committee's inquiry and report. The Committee continues to welcome any comments that interested departments and agencies may wish to make on the guidelines. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, I present a report relating to warehouse development, stage 1, for the 21st Supply Battalion, Moorebank, New South Wales. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.52) —Before the suspension of the sitting, I was commending the Government for its safety net legislation with regard to chronically ill users of pharmaceuticals. I point out that, after the twenty-fifth script, further pharmaceuticals will be provided free. Pharmacists will keep records for this purpose, issue entitlement cards, and be appropriately reimbursed by the Government for the administrative work involved. This scheme has been developed with the co-operation and support of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. It is pleasing that government and a professional body can work so successfully together in devising a program which is both mutually satisfactory and to the advantage of the community generally. This is a commendable achievement but, sadly, the exception rather than the rule, as so often relevant associations are not adequately consulted by government about proposed changes. The fourth major area of change introduced by the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is the abolition of the Commonwealth's isolated patients transport and accommodation assistance scheme and the transfer of funds for this purpose to the States. The Australian Democrats support this move. The IPTAAS program is just the sort of activity for which it is patently bad management to have power vested in a centralised Federal authority rather than in the States and regions where the scheme is used. Democrat policy supports the devolution of power and decentralisation of control in appropriate areas of public activity, and this is one such area. In addition, there have been numerous problems and anomalies within this scheme, several of which have been raised in this place in the past. It is, of course, critical that governments make provision for the delivery of health care services to those who live in isolated and rural areas. Australians who choose to work and live on the land must not have the standard of their health services and access to services of their choice jeopardised. The Government's proposal to make funds available to the States and Northern Territory to develop and administer their own schemes in place of IPTAAS is to be welcomed. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) is well aware of the difficulties that have beset this scheme. State control of this area will provide more flexibility in arrangements, as is appropriate to cater to the different needs of some very different regions in this country. One of the advantages of this is that State health authorities involved in service planning and provision will be in a position to use some of the money made available by the Commonwealth not only to transport patients to hospital and medical services but to service properly regional areas which may have been neglected under the previous IPTAAS arrangements. The States will have considerable flexibility in the schemes they devise. They should have adequate funding to administer what we look forward to as constructive solutions posed by the large scantily serviced distances with which we live in this country. There are a number of other amendments in the Bill to which I want to draw attention as they warrant some comment. The first is the clarification of secrecy provisions of the Health Insurance Act, which is affected by clause 9. This amendment is the outcome of a review which was requested by the Senate into what have been inadequate protections for the security of information held by the Health Insurance Commission. Only earlier this week we heard of the abuses and wrongful release of information held by the Department of Social Security. These are just the sorts of dangers and infringements on the right to privacy that are some of the considerations which form the basis of the Democrats' opposition to the Government's proposed Australia Card. We welcome clause 9 of the Bill. I wish also to commend Part IV of the Bill while deploring how long overdue have been improvements in the law in respect of hazardous goods. These amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act relate particularly to the manufacture of biological products and provide for the inspection of manufacturers operations generally. The Secretary to the Department of Health will be empowered to obtain specific information from a manufacturer and to have official tests performed on samples before a batch of a biological product is released for use. This is a step in the right direction but it does not begin to address the extent and complexities of the sorts of problems which were described at length by Senator Vigor in this place on 5 May this year in presenting the second reading speech for the Democrats private member's Hazardous Goods Bill. Extensive negligence, deceit and horrendous chronic injury have been associated with the distribution of a variety of supposedly therapeutic, but actually extremely hazardous, goods in this country. It is outrageous that mistakes and cover-ups like that which saw the widespread introduction of the Dalkon shield into Australia can be repeated today. The Government is moving, but only painfully slowly, to act on problems such as those dealt with by Part IV of the Bill. I wish to comment briefly on two remaining points in the Bill. Clause 14(1) extends the availability of Medicare benefits to cover the cost of surgically implanted prostheses to those operations performed in free-standing day surgery facilities. We welcome this move because, where procedures can be conducted safely without the necessity for an overnight hospital stay, day surgery has the potential to reduce the expenses associated with hospital care and to reduce the waiting lists for surgical treatment, which are of so much concern to all of us. Clause 37 amends the National Health Act to remove the references to a Minister of the Crown or a contributor to a health fund which presume that those persons are male. The replacement of these references with language that is not gender specific, but not clumsy or difficult, is welcomed by the Democrats. In commenting on the amendments proposed by the Opposition I suggest that, although aspects of them are of concern to the Australian Democrats, we are not in a position to support the amendments as they stand. Whilst emphasis is placed in those amendments on the issue of waiting lists, neither the Opposition nor the Government in comments on waiting lists during this debate has recognised a further element in that important issue-the fact that problems with staffing of hospitals are occurring because finally, after generations of expectations, nurses, most of whom happen to be female, have decided that they will not wait any longer. This is a protracted industrial relations problem with which I have considerable empathy. It is unfortunate that neither side of the House has recognised that that is part of the problem with waiting lists. The issue of blowout of costs related to Medicare is one with which the Democrats have sympathy and on which emphasis is placed in the amendment proposed by the Opposition. However, again, on neither side of the House is there recognition that major reasons for that occur outside the fact that we have a Medicare system. There is not enough support for preventive health measures and community based health services and not enough cracking down on the rip-offs in entrepreneurial medicine. In those areas we need more action and the ability to bring down the costs of health care in this country. If the Opposition had proposed serious amendments that were less all-encompassing and addressed some of the specifics of the issues, it might have been more likely that we would have considered them seriously. I think it is far more the case, in fact, that what the Opposition has recognised, as we have in this legislation, is that the basis of the legislation relating particularly to hospitals is deregulation. The Opposition, of course, cannot be seen to be opposing deregulation as such and therefore it has put up attachments to the second reading motion which really lack substance and which we will not be supporting. So, to sum up, while there are a number of valuable changes made by the Bill and by the Government's Budget strategy in the health area, there has not really been any substantial redistribution of resources to the public system, which we would have preferred. There has been some extension of the user-pays principle, which is of concern. There is little done for public hospitals. The policy goals of public health, primary health care and community-based service delivery are maintained or have seen some marginal improvements in their funding, but this is a long way from the significant shift of expenditure to health promotion activity which, as I have said, is called for by the Australian Democrats' health policy. The Budget and this Bill fail to grapple with the incentives to the open-ended demand for servicing which is a fundamental problem with the existing health system. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.02) —I thank honourable senators who have contributed to this debate. Like many debates on health legislation in this place, this debate has tended at times to be more about ideology and prejudice than about the facts. I think that one day, if we ever get the time, we should have a general debate on health which is not hung around the necessity to pass a piece of legislation. Maybe we would get some rational debate if we did that. First of all, I wish to make some general comments. We have heard from Senator Walters and other honourable senators opposite the basic argument that the health system is not good, firstly, because costs are burgeoning-and no one denies that-and, secondly, because there are large waiting lists in public hospitals, which also no one denies. This situation is said to be due, entirely it seems, to the introduction of Medicare. The direct cause is said to be a flood of people from the private hospitals to the public hospitals in this community. That seems to be the basis of the argument, that seems to be the key argument, and it simply is not true. I urge honourable senators, and I urge people in general who are interested in this area, to look at the figures. Certain facts are obvious. The occupancy rate of private hospitals in this country is in fact the same now, more or less, as it was before Medicare was introduced. Senator Walters —Of course it is. They cannot get into the public hospitals. Senator GRIMES —Senator Walters said that the problem is that there are floods of people from the private hospitals into the public hospitals. I say that is not so. In fact, the private hospitals are doing quite well, thank you very much. There is a considerable increase in many procedures in private hospitals. If one looks at the sales of private hospitals and the applications to build new private hospitals one sees that, in fact, there is every evidence that the private hospitals are doing well, and they will continue to do well after the changes in this legislation have been implemented. As the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in the other place said, private health funds in this country can use some of their $570m in reserves to cushion the changes introduced by this legislation. The increases in fees are small and there is plenty of scope for the private health system in fact to continue to expand in this country as it has done in the past. We have had expanding waiting lists in public hospitals for years. This was happening way before the introduction of Medicare. Unless we look at the multiplicity of causes for this and stop this nonsense of just saying that it is all due to bulk billing and Medicare, we will not get anywhere. We need to look at the vastly increased number of procedures that are being performed, at the extraordinary expense of some of the new technology that is being introduced and at the incredible shortage of nurses in some areas-a shortage which is due not to Medicare but to a multiplicity of factors. Senator Walters —They will tell you it is. Senator GRIMES —The nurses do not tell us that it is due to Medicare. The nurses shortage in this country preceded Medicare, and Senator Walters knows that. The shortage is to do with the archaic working conditions in some hospitals, the hierarchical nature of the nursing profession, the inadequate wages and, as Senator Walters says, the stresses and strains on people working with new technology and in quite hair-raising situations sometimes, particularly in respect of intensive care. To blame that on the introduction of a universal health insurance scheme is nonsense. To call our universal health insurance scheme `nationalised medicine' is nonsense. I think we ought to look at what has been happening in the Australian Capital Territory and what is happening in the States. We ought to look at what happens in other countries. We ought to look at why, not in the last three years but in the last 30 or 40 years, compared with other countries, in infant mortality, in longevity and in all the morbidity statistics we have gone from the top and are heading way down to the bottom. We ought to look at why a country such as Sweden has the lowest, or next to the lowest, infant mortality rate in the world, has one of the highest longevity rates in the world and has the best morbidity statistics in the world, despite having the very scheme that Senator Walters says brings doom and destruction on the whole of our system. Senator Walters —You have just told us that ours is deteriorating under your system. Senator GRIMES —I am telling Senator Walters that ours, as a scheme comparable to that of Sweden, has deteriorated in the last 30 years, not the last three years. If Senator Walters objects to the Swedish-type system, she has to explain to us in this place why patients are better off, why children who are born are better off, why people live longer and why they are better cared for under a system which she says has all the features that we should not have in this country. Senator Walters —Because they are willing to supply money and you are not. Senator GRIMES —Oh, for God's sake! They are willing to pay taxes but the people the honourable senator represents are not. Senator Sheil —They have the highest suicide rate in the world there-the highest admissions to psychiatric hospitals in the world. Senator GRIMES —I never thought that I would hear Senator Sheil bring up the old furphy that Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. Sweden has the highest reported suicide rate in the world. If Senator Sheil had worked in some countries, as some of us have, where there is a stigma against suicide, he would know that there is a hell of a difference between the reported suicide rate in a country such as Sweden and the suicide rate in a country such as Italy or Ireland, in which apparently hardly anyone commits suicide. Senator Sheil knows why that is so and he knows the pressure that doctors are under in those countries. Senator Sheil apparently objects to the low infant mortality rate and all the efficiencies of a health system such as that in Sweden. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised some problems with this legislation. It apparently was under the impression-I suppose this was because of the pressure of work-that, under the changes to section 29A contained in clause 46 of the Bill, the decision of the Secretary not to revoke a notice prohibiting the release of a batch of a sample, not to accept the company's application for release for sale of a batch which has been the subject of a notice, will not be subject to review. In fact, under section 29A it will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Clauses 41 and 42, which insert proposed new sections 23DA and 23EA, in fact may give the appearance, if looked at by themselves, that there is no review by the AAT. If we turn then to clause 46, which deals with section 29A, we find that in fact there is provision for a review by the AAT. The provisions ensure that decisions taken by the Secretary that could adversely affect a company's operation are subject to this external review. The requirement merely to provide information or samples is considered not to require review because of the later safeguards. That covers the problems raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Senator Vigor, who raised this and other matters with the Minister, has had a guarantee from the Minister that this matter will be reviewed and that the legislation will be changed if necessary. I think Senator Vigor will talk about that at the Committee stage. There are many changes in this legislation. I will not delay the Senate by going through all of them. I repeat that we need a plea for good and sensible debate about where we go with our health and health insurance systems in this country. I do not think many of us want a system like that which exists in the United States where the wealthy can afford health care but all too often those people who are poor get no health care. I certainly do not want, and no one on this side of the Parliament is suggesting that we should have, a system such as exists in the United Kingdom where list systems do not work effectively and where they are inhibited by the refusal of governments to apply sufficient attention to the health insurance system. But the world does not consist of just the United States of America, Australia and the United Kingdom. It consists also of the great social democracies of western Europe, all of which have very highly efficient health systems, the outcomes of which to the citizens and the patients of those countries are demonstrably better than the outcomes to people in other systems such as ours. If we do not judge those countries by the outcomes of those systems for individuals in those countries, and if we consider debating this issue on the basis of ideological prejudice, we will continue to do what we have been doing since I have been in this place, which is to have the same old debate with the same old cliches every time health insurance legislation is debated. Senator Sheil —No wonder you are on the wrong track, if you believe that. Senator GRIMES —I remind Senator Sheil that between 1975 and 1983, when we had a great and illustrious conservative Government, we had no less than seven health schemes in this country. Senator Sheil —Dismantling Medibank. Senator GRIMES —For the information of honourable senators I add that Senator Sheil is on record as wanting to dismantle not only Medibank but just about all the systems of health insurance in this country that care for disadvantaged people. I remember that at one stage he was not too keen on the veterans' affairs system and wanted to abolish that. But I doubt whether he says that publicly very often around election time. I thank honourable senators for their support and for the speedy passage, at least so far, of the legislation. I reject the amendment because it has more piety than substance. But it is not the first time that an opposition has moved an amendment of that type in this place. I too have been guilty of that. We oppose the amendment because we do not think it adds anything to the Bill. I urge honourable senators to support the legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Walters's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 3 —— Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. M. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Townley, M. Harradine, B. Vanstone, A. E. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. (Teller)Coleman, R. N. Macklin, M. J. Colston, M. A. Maguire, G. R. Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. Crowley, R. A. Powell, J. F. Devlin, R. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Siddons, J. R. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Haines, J. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Hamer, D. J. Coates, J. Alston, R. K. R. Bolkus, N. Durack, P. D. Cooney, B. Hill, R. Sibraa, K. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Robertson, E. A. Chaney, F. M. Georges, G. Withers, R. G. Button, J. M. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(4.20) —I wish to speak to Part IV of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. The Government is proceeding to extend the range of activities it undertakes to help ensure that the manufacture of therapeutic goods is carried out in ways that protect the safety of the public. This is a step in the right direction, coming as it does after the extra $1.3m was set aside in the 1984-85 Budget for the establishment of a register of medical devices sold in Australia. In December 1985 the Acting Minister for Health wrote to me in these terms: The question of adapting the national register of therapeutic goods to provide a reporting system for defects in or injuries due to medical devices and to provide a hazard alert for devices is under consideration. Will the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) say how much further the matter has progressed, because this is a serious problem? I also draw attention to recommendation 55 in the November 1985 report of the Social Development Committee of the Victorian Parliament entitled `Inquiry into Therapeutic Goods and Cosmetics Bill 1984'. That recommendation was: That the issue of a national registration scheme, its resources, staffing and operation be referred to the next Health Ministers conference. Again, I would like to know what, if anything, has happened about that and what the Commonwealth's attitude to such a reference would be. I note that that Committee was reasonably satisfied with the evaluation of imported therapeutic products, even though there seems to have been continuing inactivity in relation to the Dalkon shield after the marketer of a rival device wrote to the Minister for Health in 1974 claiming that the shield could well contain copper acetate and therefore would be in the bio-active group of IUDs and so classed as a therapeutic good rather than just a plastic device. We still have similar problems within our classifications. Other groups, such as the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, have been a little more sceptical about whether the resources put into evaluation of therapeutic goods from overseas have been adequate. The Minister for Community Services might want to respond by indicating how things have been tightened up since AFCO's 1984 submission which was entitled `Deadly Neglect: Regulating the Manufacture of Therapeutic Goods'. The Victorian Social Development Committee had some much more trenchant remarks to make about the situation where therapeutic goods are made in Australia. It said: The registration of Australian-produced products is vital and is not currently adequately controlled by the Commonwealth. For this reason, the Committee concludes that the present Australian system is unsatisfactory. I acknowledge that we have an improvement before us in that the regulations make the capacity for inspection of the manufacture of goods for therapeutic purposes a matter of law. Indeed, the Commonwealth has constitutional power over this area. I note that the 1984 submission by AFCO made the suggestion that all medical devices should be required by legislation to perform in a safe and effective manner so that there would be greater incentive for manufacturers to do the proper pre-marketing testing. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations also suggested that compliance with performance standards for certain high priority devices should be mandatory. It pointed out that in Canada pacemakers, IUDs, prolonged wear contact lenses, lens implants, tampons and all devices implanted into the body for more than 30 days were subjected to rigorous pre-marketing testing by the authorities. Last December Senator Button wrote informing me that the Department of Health had requested successfully that the import of cardiac pacemakers and accessories, intra-uterine contraceptive devices, intra-ocular lenses and drug infusion systems be controlled on the grounds of public safety. The administrative formalities were due to be implemented this year. Has that already happened? Will the Minister indicate what further action the Government has in train or in prospect for the greater protection of the Australian public when it comes to the confident use of therapeutic goods or goods claimed to be therapeutic? What steps will be taken to encourage the States to adopt an active co-operative stance in this matter so that the various shonky practices that we have seen in the past can be eradicated? This morning I raised with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) a problem associated with clause 46 of the Bill which I sought to amend to make it possible for public interest bodies to use clause 46 to appeal against various decisions by the Secretary to the Department. My recommendations have been accepted by the Minister, who has written me a letter stating that, rather than putting this in the form of an amendment, he will implement short term administrative guidelines in the Department to ensure that the problem I raised with him will not occur. In the long term there will be a full review of the Therapeutic Goods Act, a review which we hope to see in the very near future. I thank the Minister for that assurance and for his prompt action. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the Minister's letter. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- MINISTER FOR HEALTH Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Senator D. B. Vigor Parliament House CANBERRA A.C.T. 2600 My dear Senator I understand from our discussions earlier today, that you have some concerns about the amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act contained in Part IV of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986. I understand your concerns centre around the fact that a decision taken by the Secretary to revoke a notice under proposed section 23EA might be made and take effect before- community groups and individuals who have an interest in the matter have the opportunity to become informed and consider whether they should exercise appeal rights conferred under amendments to section 29A of the Therapeutic Goods Act by clause 46 of the Bill; any appeal made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to the matter under the proposed amendments is determined. As we discussed, in the light of your concerns I have instructed my Department to take account of these issues in the current review of the Therapeutic Goods Act. I anticipate that legislation to give effect to the review will be introduced during the Autumn Sittings next year. I have also directed my Department, in the interim, to ensure that administrative arrangements are put in place that will ensure that persons or groups who have expressed interest in a biological product that is the subject of a notice under proposed section 23EA of the Therapeutic Goods Act are given at least 7 days notice of any proposed decision by the Secretary to revoke the notice. I understand that on the basis of these arrangements you will not proceed with your proposed amendment. Yours sincerely Neal Blewett Senator VIGOR —I thank the Committee and recommend to the Government a speedy review of the Therapeutic Goods Act. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.27) —I thank Senator Vigor for his contribution. I can answer a couple of his questions. The Therapeutic Devices Evaluation Committee regulations are being written at the moment. I do not think that is any indication of any slackness on anyone's part. If there is anything worse than having insufficient regulation in this area, it is to have regulations and committee's powers so written that they inhibit the introduction of all new developments into this country. I am informed that the customs regulations to which Senator Vigor referred will be in place on 1 February next year. I shall raise the other matters with the Minister for Health and get a detailed reply. I merely wish to interpose a personal comment. The Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations is a very good and important body and its views should be considered and taken seriously. I do not think that they should be read as holy writ. I do not think that they should be paraded in this place as though it is the only organisation with any knowledge and authority in this area. Despite past problems, I do not believe that this country has a bad record in controlling the introduction of new therapeutic devices, drugs or anything else. We have had our problems with thalidomide and matters such as that-they are not to be laughed at-but we have had good regulations. I do not believe that we have had over-regulation. We have not been the last to introduce the new and not the first to reject the old, as one of the people who taught Senator Peter Baume and me used to warn us against doing. We can do some things better and we shall continue to do them better. We shall take that action, having had advice and having taken account of the views of a whole number of organisations, not just AFCO. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That the following senators be granted leave of absence for the periods specified on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business: Senator Bolkus, 16 September 1986 to the last day of sitting of 1986; Senator Coates, 19 September 1986 to 25 September 1986; Senator Cooney, 19 September 1986 to 25 September 1986; and Senator Colston, 7 October 1986 to 17 October 1986. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.33) —Last Saturday marked the first anniversary of the iniquitous capital gains tax. Both the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax are vague, loosely worded and contain anomalies, ambiguities and inconsistencies. The scope of both these pieces of legislation is very much wider than the Government led the general community to believe. It is not surprising that, in this situation of a great deal of confusion in the public mind, Ministers themselves go astray from time to time. This afternoon in the Senate I sought an answer from the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, and, having some difficulty, he indicated that he would seek an appropriate answer from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). However, he then went on to answer my question. Unfortunately his response was not entirely in line with an answer that was given by the Australian Taxation Office. This is not surprising because there are numerous examples where answers on capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax have varied according to whether they were given by the Australian Taxation Office, the Minister for Finance or the Treasurer himself. Also there are inconsistencies in answers from various officers of the Taxation Office, including its regional offices. The Government has stressed the exemption of the principal private residence from capital gains tax. We are aware that that exemption is outlined in section 160zzq of the Act. However, there is a minefield of areas where the family home is subject to capital gains tax. I am sure that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes), who is at the table, would be aware of cases where this occurs-for example, where an elderly person has to move in with relatives, or where people are posted overseas. This afternoon I sought the Senate's approval to incorporate in Hansard a list of 12 areas where the family home is subject to capital gains tax. Leave was not granted at that time. I again seek the leave of the Minister to have my document incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Tax Task Force Secretary, Mr Peter Reith claims he was told by the Tax Office that if he and his family lived in Canberra because of his Parliamentary commitments and they purchased a home in Melbourne in which they intended in the future to reside then that Melbourne property would, until occupied by them, attract a liability for capital gains tax. The fact is that under the capital gains tax there are many circumstances in which the family home will be subject to tax. It is no wonder that in private correspondence to his colleagues the Treasurer recently estimated receipts from the CGT at ``ultimately $200-300m''. Mr Reith said that ``Circumstances where the family home will attract liability or will bear the brunt of the tax are as follows: (1) The capital gains tax exemption is based on the qualification that the family home be not used for income-producing purposes. If a member of the family pays rent or board, the family home will lose its exemption, either in whole or in part. Similarly, if the family home has a study used for work then a liability may be incurred. Ref: Sub-sec. 21. (2) The sale or gift of the family garden shed, storeroom or other structure, will be subject to Capital Gains Tax. This includes the case where a father gives his son the portable tool shed from the garden. Ref: Sub-sections 1, 3 and 4. (3) Capital Gains Tax will apply to a new family home purchased by a young couple whilst still living with their parents before their marriage. (4) It will also apply to a young couple who are renting and who purchase a block for their family home. The young couple will find that the block is subject to Capital Gains Tax. Ref: Sub-section (5e) and (f). This could occur as follows: (i) The exemption is only available if upon completion of the new house it is occupied for at least 12 months. If for example the young couple have to move (for work reasons) within 12 months then the exemption is lost. (ii) The maximum exemption-free time allowed under sub-section 5 (f) is 4 years. If because they are building themselves, or they are not saving fast enough and the time lapse between acquisition and occupation exceeds 4 years, then the young couple will have to pay capital gains tax on a pro rata basis. (iii) If the block is purchased by the young couple prior to their marriage and if one or both of them are during that time dependent on a parent then for that period the block will not be exempt. (iv) Additional problems will also arise in situations when either or both of the parties have been previously married and still have an interest in a matrimonial home which may be the subject of a protracted dispute and in which the couple are residing pending construction. (5) If the family home is on more than 2 hectares, then the excess over 2 hectares is subject to Capital Gains Tax. Many people will be caught up by this provision, particularly in outer metropolitan areas where blocks in excess of 2 hectares are very popular. The Assets Test fiasco showed how difficult questions of valuation become, particularly where stringent town planning controls are in force. (6) If the family home is in excess of 2 hectares and you allow a neighbour to put in a drain at the back of your property, then you are liable for Capital Gains Tax even though you receive no payment from your neighbour. The creation of de factor or de jure easements is very common and this particular provision will cause many headaches. (7) Where the family home is on a block less than 2 hectares but which is still big enough to subdivide, then any land subdivided off will be subject to Capital Gains Tax on the whole of the sale value. Ref: Sub-section 4. (8) To claim the tax exemption for land that is adjacent to the family home even when the home is on less than 2 hectares, the land must be used primarily for private or domestic purposes. If this is not the case the land will be taxable regardless of its size. Ref: Sub-section 3. (9) The family home of a couple which is a unit or flat in a retirement village may not be exempt from Capital Gains Tax unless the owners have a title, a lease or shares in the titles holding. Ref: Sub-section 2. Note: This will have wide ramifications, as many retirement villages do not grant titles, leases or shares. (10) Taxpayers can claim only one property as their principal place of residence, although two dwellings are permissible for up to three months where a taxpayer changes homes. Many thousands of Australians will be caught up in the situation where it takes longer to sell property than they had realised. In this situation, if Labor's high interest rate policy does not ruin families through high-cost bridging finance, then the Capital Gains Tax certainly will. Ref: Sub-section 8. (11) It is not just the so-called rich who will pay Labor's Capital Gains Tax. For people who rent their family home the new tax has meant increased rent as investors try to recoup the tax. Rent increases in capital cities have ranged up to 23.8% with reported increases of 14.1% in Sydney and 12.9% in Melbourne. (12) A Capital Gains Tax is payable where the family home is owned by a discretionary trust. The Tax Office has attempted some reassuring noises although the Act is clear. Ref: Sub-section 160zzs and Sub-section 12. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —Before the Senate adjourns I advise honourable senators that Estimates Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Estimates Committee B will meet in committee rooms 1 and 2, and Estimates Committee C will meet in committee room 6. Prior to the sittings of the committees, the bells will be rung for three minutes. Senate adjourned at 4.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 7 October The following papers were tabled: Fisheries Act-Fisheries Notice-No. 171-Prohibition on pelagic longline fishing in waters off the east coast of Australia, dated 12 September 1986. Public Service Act-Parliamentary Presiding Officers' Determination 1986-No. 1, dated 18 July 1986. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Amendments of the schedules to the subsidy schemes in relation to the States, dated 22 September 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 991) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) When was the last Habitation Review conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. (2) What was the cost by State of the Habitation Review. (3) What is the planned date for the next Habitation Review in each State. (4) What is the estimated cost of the next Habitation Review for each State. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (4) The Australian Electoral Commission has provided the following advice: State Last habitation review Dates Cost Next habitation review Planned date Cost r$ $ NSW... July 1983-March 1984 927,800 September 1986 1,506,000 VIC... May-December 1983 681,000 September 1986 1.059,000 Qld... June-October 1983 551,000 February 1987 694,000 WA... April-December 1985 273,094 June 1987 301,400 SA... July 1984-April 1985 235,000 February 1987 277,000 Tas... March-June 1985 60,500 (i)...September 1986 92,000 ACT... March-August 1986 97,495 (ii)...Early 1988 100,000 NT... June-October 1983 11,000 (iii)...August 1986 30,000 Notes: (i) 75% coverage; (ii) Estimated, as incomplete; (iii) 50% coverage. (Question No. 1226) Senator Puplick asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 June 1986: 1. Is an Australian citizen, Mr Konrad Kalejs, presently living in the United States of America. 2. Is he being investigated by the Justice Department in relation to his activities as a member of the Latvian Security Police during World War 2. 3. If he is a naturalised Australian and is deported from the United States as a war criminal will he be permitted to return to Australia. 4. In the event that he does so, will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs give an assurance that the Government will act to ensure that he is required to answer here for those war crimes which may lead the United States to determine that he is not fit to live in that country. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1. A Mr Konrad Kalejs who is believed to be an Australian citizen is presently in custody in the United States. 2. I am informed that he is being held pending a court hearing into his alleged failure to disclose his Nazi connections on his arrival in the United States in 1959. 3. There is no restriction on the entry of an Australian citizen into Australia. It would be necessary to confirm that, at the time of the proposed re-entry to Australia, the person concerned is an Australian citizen. 4. The Government has appointed Mr A. C. Menzies OBE to review material on the entry into Australia of all persons claimed to have committed war crimes related to the activities of Germany during World War II. The review will report on whether further investigations are required and any other relevant considerations. Any subsequent action by the Federal Government will depend upon the outcome of this review.