Wednesday, 29 April 1987 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned at the impact of the proposed Australia Card legislation on the following grounds: 1. We believe that it represents potentially undesirable interference in the lives of honest Australians and is a grave interference in the civil liberties of Australian citizens; 2. That it will not address the problems of tax evasion and social security fraud; 3. That it will create unnecessary expansion of the bureaucracy; and calls on the Senate to reject the legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 15 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: The Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner, tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: Reject Labor's ID card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Collard (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Labor Government's Identity Card. (2) That this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combatting the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security. (3) That we are deeply concerned at the Labor Government's inability to provide effective and efficient methods to combat tax and social security fraud without resorting to expensive, ineffective and authoritarian measures which are alien to the Australian way of life. (4) That we call upon the Labor Government to improve management systems within the Australian Taxation Office and other departments to crack down on tax evasion and fraudulent practices. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: (1) That the Government's proposed Identity Card is the greatest threat to civil liberties in the history of this country; (2) That the I.D. card will be a costly and unnecessary method of attacking tax evasion and social security fraud; and (3) That the proposal will impose yet another bureaucratic burden on the business sector. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject the Government's legislation to introduce the Australia Card or any other identity card system. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 132 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The costs of raising children are rising and the value of government provided economic assistance to families is declining. Families raising children are providing a vital function to society and are deserving of government provided economic assistance. Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to:- 1. Restore family allowance payments to their 1976 real money value. 2. Provide for the regular and automatic indexation of family allowance payments. 3. Increase the value of the Dependant Spouse Rebate to $1851 per annum and convert it to a cash payment given directly to the non-income earning spouse. 4. Amend the Family Income Supplement Scheme so that its value is increased, its eligibility provisions widened and its withdrawal provisions eased. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Chaney (from 70 citizens), Knowles (from 453 citizens) and Robertson (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the under-signed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned that in the International Year of Peace, young Australians face an uncertain future due to: 1 a continuing arms race between the super-powers which threatens to extend into outer space 2 military expenditure continuing at ridiculously high levels 3 continuing testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons Your petitioners therefore humbly call upon the Federal Parliament to do everything possible to make our future more certain, by: 1 encouraging peaceful dialogue through diplomatic channels as the means of solving issues. 2 persuading all developed countries to spend less on armaments, and more on basic needs like food, health, shelter and education for all people of the world. 3 promoting the extension of agreements to reduce testing and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Elstob (from 29 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: Moreton Island is an invaluable natural resource for Queensland and the world and that mining on Moreton would gravely compromise its unique flora and fauna and its outstanding recreational achaeological and scientific values. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the government to use its proven constitutional powers to halt sand mining on Moreton by supporting the Moreton Island Preservation Bill. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 50 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Seek for Australian merchant seaman's time served on ships of the United States of America to be added to time served on Australian ships during war time to qualify for the Australian service medal. by Senator Maguire (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread community concern about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners, most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should:- (1) Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia and (2) Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium 137 and caesium 134 to be used to irradiate food products, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Vigor (from 112 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth; that we support your efforts to strengthen our family and community life particularly by increased penalties for `drug pushers' and distributors. We, however, wish to register our firm opposition to any legal changes which would increase or encourage the distribution or availability of so-called `soft drugs' such as marijuana. We believe such drugs to be harmful to the physical and psychological health of the individual and therefore to the interest of the community of which such individual is part. Although there is current controversy concerning the question of such harm it appears to us quite foolish to legalise and encourage the use of such drugs unless or until it be shown that such drugs are in fact harmless. The serious social problems of alcohol should provide sufficient warning to our society. Any efforts to legalise or decriminalise usage or distribution of such drugs will have the following results: 1. Encourage and inculcate a social acceptability towards such drugs. 2. Increase the volume of usage of such drugs in schools and the community by present users and by ``drug pushers'' through the proposed one ounce legal possession. 3. Extend the usage of such drugs to persons who would previously have abstained because of the legal sanctions. 4. Put pressure upon Parliament to establish and licence import, growth, manufacture and/or distribution of such drugs, that is, to regulate another destructive industry contrary to the best interest of the individual and society. 5. There would be the probable temptation to tax such drugs as another source of Federal revenue. We urge the Government to increase the medical and counselling facilities for the assistance of drug users and to expand existing Drug Referral Centres and Clinics. We have general confidence in the existing law and its sympathetic implementation by the Police and Courts. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will firstly take no measures that could extend the major social problems of drug usage and secondly will oblige those who are promoting marijuana and/or similar drugs to prove without doubt that such drugs are harmless before any legalisation or decriminalisation of use is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 63 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that any decision by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to reduce the local content of the programme, the ``Country Hour'', would represent yet another severe blow to Western Australian rural people; that even under current programming Western Australian country people receive little locally produced radio, and in view of the inefficiencies in the operations of the ABC disclosed by the Auditor-General, your petitioners call upon the Government to improve the efficient operation of the ABC before it reduces the local content of important rural programmes such as the Country Hour. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we consider the 2 per cent discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. The Commonwealth has reneged on an established commitment as incorporated in Commonwealth legislation and benefit promise pensions are not being paid in full. In particular we resent the long-term effect of the discounting. The pension loss is compounded throughout the life of a pensioner and surviving dependants-into the 21st century for many. We consider this Government-induced penalty to be out of all proportion to the short-term ``extraordinary circumstances of the economy'' given as the reason for the discounting. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to: 1. limit the pension discounting effect of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation Amendment Act 1986 to the period 10 October 1986 to 1 July 1987 so that pensions are restored to the 9 October 1986 level as a base for the 1987 pension adjustment; and 2. consult with organisations representing pensioners before changing the terms and conditions of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Schemes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Brownhill (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: that we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of widespread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 60 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the honourable members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: (1) Australians are offended by taxation evasion and welfare fraud which has the effect of increasing the taxation burden of honest Australians. (2) The community has shown its overwhelming support for the Government's decision to proceed with a national identification system known as the Australia Card. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable Senate will: continue to fight against taxation evasion and welfare fraud and restore fairness and equity to the tax and welfare systems by supporting the Australia Card Bill. by Senator Button (from 19 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of concern to Australian citizens asks that: If, there is to be legal process against alleged war criminals resident in Australia, the foundations of justice should be clear and equitable. 1. Let the term, ``war crime'', be first clearly defined. 2. Let specific prosecutions be swiftly launched against those individuals alleged to have committed them, thus releasing the rest of their co-nationals from unwarranted slur and suspicion. 3. Let an Australian tribunal hear the charges. Nobody should be deported to face the ``tender mercies'' of any foreign government. 4. Let the presumption of innocence until proved guilt be clearly established. 5. Let all evidence obtained from the Soviet or any other communist government be set aside and totally disregarded. 6. Let all the costs of any person charged and found not guilty be paid by the Commonwealth Government so that innocent people are not financially ruined in the course of establishing their innocence. As your petitioners as in duty bound ever pray: by Senator Brownhill (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate assembled. The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland showeth that the electoral system in Queensland, based on a 4 zonal weighted system, is an affront to democracy. The National Party under the leadership of Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen is always returned to Government with no opportunity for the voting public to bring about change. Your petitioners point out that under the Queensland voting system the National Party at the State Elections on 1 November 1986 managed to achieve 55 per cent of the seats with only 39 per cent of the votes. This demonstrates that 61 per cent of Queenslanders do not want a National Party Government yet received one. Your petitioners therefore earnestly pray that the Federal Government legislates as a matter of urgency to bring about a democratic system of voting in Queensland State elections based on the principle of one vote one value. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Senator Jones (from 46 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia. Concerned about the high and increasing rate of divorce and family breakdown, Convinced that the Family Law Act has weakened marriage by making divorce a trivial matter, the present Act paying scant regard to its own definition of marriage as a life-long union; and Believing that the legal bond of marriage should be strengthened. Humbly petition for the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act to be amended in order to 1. reject any moves towards divorce by post 2. restore the former prohibition of marriages between close relatives by blood or marriage 3. protect the rights and welfare of aggrieved partners of a marriage who are threatened with being divorced against their will 4. ensure that in divorce judgments paramount attention be given to whatever course will best serve the welfare of dependent children of the marriage 5. encourage counselling towards reconciliation 6. restore objective tests to irretrievable breakdown of marriage in terms of: i. intolerable behaviour; ii. desertion for two years; iii. separation for three years. And we pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Senator Reid (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That even though the ACT House of Assembly requested that the ACT be declared a nuclear free zone the Federal Government has refused to allow this to occur. Your Petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Resolve that the Government should declare the ACT a nuclear free zone as requested by the ACT House of Assembly. And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray: by Senator Vigor (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows that there is an urgent need for Commonwealth financial assistance for the provision of multicultural public library services. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should take steps to ensure adequate assistance from the Commonwealth Government to public libraries throughout Australia for the provision of materials and services in languages other than English, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in its Report on a National Language policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 123 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Queensland and Federal Governments have failed to take action to protect the Daintree rainforest Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Support the Daintree Rainforest Private Members Bill introduced by Senator Michael Macklin (Australian Democrats) which is designed to protect the Daintree rainforest. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 23 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: We the undersigned citizens, call on the Commonwealth Government to introduce a ban on smoking on flights of 90 minutes or less. This ban should be introduced irrespective of the stand-off attitudes adopted by the airlines at present. by Senator Chaney (from 30 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: 1. The continued presence in Australia of the United States bases make this country a target for nuclear attack; 2. These U.S. bases are integral parts of the global nuclear war machine; 3. Australia should be governed in the interests of Australians and foreign bases are not in our interests. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Support the Australian Democrats' Foreign Bases (Pine Gap Base) Removal Bill which requires the Government to wind up operations at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility-better known as Pine Gap, by terminating the agreement under which it operates in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 34 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate. The petition of the undersigned do respectfully showeth that pornographic material relating to children is deleterious to the health and welfare of children and society as a whole. We respectfully urge the Government to ban all child pornography from entering or from being produced in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 17 citizens). Petitions received. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate refer to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations the 1985-86 Annual Report of the Parliament House Construction Authority for examination and report. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the depressed business investment climate in this country as exemplified by a number of recent surveys published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and private sector organisations, including the Australian Chamber of Manufactures; (b) condemns the Federal Government for this depressed investment environment which is a direct result of the high interest rate policy pursued by the Government, pushing the small business and prime interest rates to record levels; (c) notes the depressing effect which ever increasing Government taxes and charges, such as the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax, are having on the after-tax real rate of return on business investment; and (d) deplores the lack of appreciation by the Government of the anti-business impact of the new legislation on dividend imputation and its interaction with the foreign tax credit system. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) welcomes the Prime Minister's (Mr Hawke's) belated announcement that the Federal Government will not bring back the defeated ABC/SBS merger legislation; (b) welcomes the restoration in the supplementary appropriations of the $1m snatched from both the SBS and the ABC on the spurious pretext of being immediate amalgamation savings; (c) calls upon the Government to restore its earlier decision to establish a Special Broadcasting Corporation by passing the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation Bill 1986 currently on the Senate Notice Paper; and (d) urges the Government not to try once again this year to invent and mischievously promote disingenuous grounds for cutting funds to multicultural broadcasting. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) noting with concern that under the Federal Labor Government's Medicare system the Australian people have not received an adequate health service providing a range of services, as previously available; (b) noting that according to the Economic Planning Advisory Council increased health expenditure has occurred under recent Labor Governments (expenditure having grown rapidly between 1973-74 and 1984-85); and (c) noting that this is in direct conflict with the Fraser years when costs fell substantially but a greater level of services were available, calls upon the Government to rationalise health expenditure and ensure that the Government's Medicare system does in fact provide adequate health care for all Australians who expect to be covered by it. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate seek to resolve the present confusing Opposition seating arrangements which continue to reflect a coalition which no longer exists. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the inspired speculation being promoted in some newspapers about possible future funding cuts for local government; (b) recalls the findings of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance that councils deliver services to people more cost effectively than do the larger State and Commonwealth bureaucracies; (c) recalls the manner in which the Labor, Liberal and National parties combined in May 1985 to end the 2 per cent personal income tax sharing entitlement, about which councils had not complained when this gave them increases below the rate of inflation; and (d) calls on the Federal Government to uphold the integrity of the legislation it sponsored last year to guarantee future levels of funding to local government. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Australian Agricultural Council-Resolutions of the 125th meeting-Queenstown, New Zealand, 6 February 1987. 2. Australian Soil Conservation Council-Resolutions of the 2nd meeting-Queenstown, New Zealand, 6 February 1987. 3. Fishing Industry Research Committee-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969. 4. Services Canteens Trust Fund-Final Annual Report 1986-Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947-together with the Auditor-General's Report-pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901. 5. Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board-Annual Report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 40 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1986. Motion (by Senator Macklin) agreed to: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, where a Bill is introduced by a Minister, or is received from the House of Representatives, after 1 June 1987, and a motion is moved for the second reading of the Bill, debate on that motion shall be taken to be adjourned upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator moving the motion, and the resumption of the debate shall be made an Order of the Day for the first day of sitting in August 1987, without any Question being put. (2) That immediately after debate on a motion for the second reading of a Bill is adjourned in accordance with paragraph (1), or following the giving of notices on a subsequent day, a motion may be moved without notice to refer that Bill to a standing committee for inquiry and report by a day not later than the first day of sitting in August 1987. (3) That this Order cease to have effect at the commencement of the first day of sitting in August 1987. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. Bills (on motion by Senator Tate) read a first time. Second Readings Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(10.10) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BILL 1987 This Bill gives effect to the Government's rural industries research policy insofar as the research and development requirements of the fishing industry are concerned. The Bill replaces, but does not repeal, the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 which has since its commencement provided a total of $28,540,000 to support research for the benefit of the Australian fishing industry. The Fishing Industry Research Trust Account established by that Act has supported scientific and biological research in many Australian fisheries. It has supported exploratory fishing projects, fishing gear technology studies, education for fishermen and research into the handling and marketing of fish products. CSIRO, universities, government agencies, fishing companies and individual fishermen have received funding from the Account to undertake research. The Account has funded a wide range of industry-related projects, for example, experimental longlining for tuna as the basis of Australia's entry into the lucrative Japanese sashimi market, squid jigging off Tasmania and development of a marketing database on the VIATEL system which is attracting interest from exporters, Japanese importers and fishermen's co-operatives. Full details of the operations of the Fishing Industry Research Act are set out in the annual reports of the Fishing Industry Research Committee. The Australian fishing industry has, in my view, received important benefits from the operation of the Fishing Industry Research Act that have contributed over time to the welfare of the industry and its place in the national economy. The Bill provides a basis for this to continue under more modern and representative administrative arrangements consistent with the modern legislative framework for rural industries research generally. The Bill makes two fundamental changes to the basis of determining the amount that the Commonwealth will match by way of appropriation to the Fisheries Research and Development Trust Fund that the Bill establishes. The Commonwealth will match expenditure from approved State funds rather than revenue collected from industry and credited to those funds. And there will be a ceiling to the Commonwealth Appropriation to the Trust Fund, equal in any financial year to 1% of the average annual gross value of production by the catching and culturing sectors of the Australian fishing industry during the three preceding financial years, as determined by the Minister. The mechanism for determining the amount of the appropriation will remain much the same as under the existing legislation. That is, the Minister will determine one fund under each State's fisheries law to be an approved fund and specified money in that fund to be approved money. The Bill requires all those determinations to be tabled in Parliament and provides for their disallowance as if they were regulations. Before making any determination under Part III of the Bill in relation to the Trust Fund, the Minister will have regard to the legislative and administrative basis of State funds and the moneys cre-dited to those funds. The Bill establishes administrative machinery closely resembling that provided by the Rural Industries Research Act. There is to be a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council, which will prepare five-year plans of fisheries research and development and annual programs for giving effect to that plan, for approval by the Minister. The Council will undertake the decision-making and administrative functions associated with the Trust Fund, employing staff in classifications approved by the Minister and the Public Service Board for that purpose. The members of the Council appointed by the Minister will comprise an independent chairperson, a government member experienced in formulation of government policy and public administration, and not fewer than three or more than seven members with experience and knowledge of the fishing industry and fisheries research and a high order of general administrative and managerial ability. The Bill provides for the Minister to appoint members of a Fishing Industry Research and Development Council Selection Committee, comprising an independent chairperson, a member with experience in fisheries administration or management, a member experienced in fisheries research and development, a member nominated by the Australian Fisheries Council and three members nominated by the National Fishing Industry Council. The Selection Committee will, whenever the Minister requests, put forward so many nominations as there are vacancies on the Council, having regard to the mix of skills and abilities that the Bill requires the Council to possess. The Minister may reject any nomination and request the Selection Committee to submit another one. Previous rejection or non-selection is not a barrier to subsequent nomination. I have outlined the fundamental principles of the Bill. The details of its provisions for giving effect to those principles are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum circulated to Honourable Senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill provides transitional arrangements between the effective termination of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969 and the proposed operation of the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill 1987 already before the Senate. The Bill amends the Fishing Industry Research Act in a major sense, by repealing the appropriation and the provisions establishing the Fishing Industry Research Committee, the functions of which will be replaced by the Fishing Industry Research and Development Bill. The shell of the principal Act after passage of the present Bill will preserve the Fishing Industry Research Trust Account until the money in that Account has been spent or otherwise disposed of. The Government has decided that the money left in the Research Account, after settlement of all outstanding accounts and recovery of all moneys due to the Account, is to be applied to the acquisition of a fisheries research vessel for the CSIRO Division of Fisheries Research. Should that outcome not occur, the Ministers for Finance and Primary Industry are to confer about the disposal of the residue. I commend the Bill to the Senate. FISHING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1987 This Bill makes amendments of an essentially administrative and procedural nature to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1984, the Fisheries Act 1952 and the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. I can inform the Senate that there will be further amendments of the Fisheries Act later this year to give effect in Australian law to the multilateral treaty between the United States and the Pacific island countries that are members of the Forum Fisheries Agency with respect to the operation of United States tuna boats in the exclusive fishing zones of those countries. It is expected that the treaty will be signed on 31 March next and come into force later in the year. The Australian fishing industry is undergoing a period of profound change and it pleases me to say that this Government has in considerable measure been keeping in step with those changes. The Government approaches management of our fisheries on a co-operative basis with the fishing industry. We have established the Fishing Industry Policy Council of Australia to provide a forum for government and industry to discuss issues of mutual interest. In the long-established framework of the Australian Fisheries Council, we have strengthened the institutional framework for consulting with the relevant industry sectors about the the management of our major fisheries such as northern prawns, tuna, south east trawl, southern shark and north-west shelf crustaceans. Statutory management plans are already in place with the full co-operation of industry in the two first-mentioned of those fisheries. We are working toward having management plans in place for the others in the near future. The Government has taken steps to give effect to the fisheries element of the offshore constitutional settlement set up by our predecessors. I give full credit to the previous Government for creating the statutory basis on which the Commonwealth and the States can enter into formal legal arrangements whereby a fishery is managed under a single law, be it Commonwealth or State, from the coast to the outer limit of our fisheries jurisdiction. The preparations for giving effect to the settlement in the fisheries context have been lengthy but I can inform the Senate that arrangements with Queensland in the Torres Strait protected zone have been in place now for more than two years and a further four arrangements have been in place elsewhere in Australia since June 1986. As well, the Minister for Primary Industry has recently executed another 17 arrangements for the Commonwealth and sent them to the States for approval prior to seeking the approval of the Governor-General for them. In the near future a Bill will be introduced to restructure the Commonwealth's involvement in fisheries research and development. This will follow lines essentially similar to those in the Rural Industries Research Act, taking account of the unique institutional factors that make a separate Fisheries Research and Development Act necessary. In 1985-86, the gross value of fisheries production, at $592m, ranked sixth among all Australia's rural industries, one place better than in 1984-85. In 1984-85, production was estimated at 148,900 tonnes, valued at $523.5m. Exports of fishery products have increased from $230m in 1980-81 to an estimated $481m in 1985-86 and have significantly exceeded the value of imports each year during that period. There are more than 9,000 boats in the Australian commercial fishing fleet with an annual consumption of about 240 million litres of diesel fuel. Estimated annual domestic per capita consumption has risen from 15 kilograms in 1979-80 to 17.3 kilograms in 1983-84, measured as live weight equivalent. These figures give a general picture of a vigorous fishing industry which is making a very important contribution to the domestic economy and food supplies as well as to foreign exchange earnings. Against this fairly active domestic background, the provisions of the Bill reflect a wide range of recent administrative experience accumulated by the Australian Fisheries Service and the State fisheries authorities that undertake the day to day administration of the Acts that the Bill amends. The Bill brings the three principal Acts that it amends into line in so far as their administrative provisions are concerned. The Bill shifts the emphasis of the provisions authorising the Minister to make notices for the regulation of the fisheries, away from the notices to the prohibitions in them. This will facilitate the preparation of notices containing several prohibitions each requiring separate endorsements of licences. The Bill strengthens the powers of officers so that they may be better equipped to enforce the three Acts. It does so in accordance with those principles of Commonwealth legal policy that have regard to civil liberties and individuals' rights, taking account of the special circumstances in which the principal Acts are enforced. The difficulties of detecting fisheries offences at sea, far from the nearest land and a magistrate who can issue warrants with reasonable facility, make it necessary to provide fisheries enforcement officers with powers that in other circumstances might seem excessive. The Bill provides powers in this regard that the Government considers to be an acceptable balance between the need for effective enforcement and the protection of civil liberties. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that the Bill conforms with Commonwealth criminal law legal policy. The Bill provides a basis for ascertaining the state of mind of a director or other agent of a body corporate where it is necessary to do so in legal proceedings for offences for which the Acts provide a penalty for a body corporate. The Explanatory Memorandum summarises the clauses of the Bill, thus making it unnecessary for me to take the time of the Senate in a detailed explanation of them. The Bill is of an essentially machinery nature for the better administration of the laws affecting Australia's fisheries and has no financial implications. I commend it to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition requesting changes in the membership of Estimates committees. Motion (by Senator Chaney)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the following Senators be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committees- Estimates Committee B-Senator Watson Estimates Committee C-Senator Hill. (2) That the following Senators, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, be appointed members of Estimates Committees- Estimates Committee B-Senator Sir John Carrick Estimates Committee C-Senator Parer. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.13) —Before the adjournment last night I was making some comments on the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987, particularly from the point of view of the relationship between tourism, as an economic unit within our overall structure, and mining. I was making the point that, when talking of linking mining and development, as we have tended to do, we should also realise that there are opportunity losses in mining in various areas of Australia from the point of view of the attractiveness of those areas as international tourist destinations. I was also making the point that we have to balance the economic return from a tourist development and the economic return from a mining development within a framework that is sensible. We are all very much aware that tourism in Australia, essentially in terms of contribution to the economy, is still relatively much in its infancy. Without a doubt in years to come, we will see larger and larger contributions being made by tourism to the whole economic fabric of this country. It is vitally important, therefore, that we undertake now a very clear national plan that would preserve and enhance those natural advantages that we have over other countries. Australia is a preferred tourist destination because of its stable political climate, because of its very efficient internal transportation system, and because of very mundane things such as actually having clean water, which, unfortunately, is not something shared by many countries around the world. We are a very attractive country in all those infrastructure terms. However, on top of that, we probably have in one single continent the most outstanding natural features, the most astonishing selection of world heritage items, that anybody could see anywhere in the world. We probably have the basic ingredient for an extraordinary tourist operation, provided that we ensure that the developments that we put in place, during the next decade in particular, do not run counter to that general thrust. Hence, it is important that in considering something as attractive as the Kakadu National Park, we weigh up not only the jobs and the returns from mining versus the outstanding natural and environmental values that Kakadu incorporates, but also the balance of economic returns from mining against both the environmental values and the economic returns that Kakadu represents as a tourist destination. For all too long in this country, the debate has been carried by the economic rationalists who argue jobs and money as though there is only one side to the equation. There is not, and that will not progressively be so in the future. So many of the environmental battles around Australia have been fought on that dichotomy. It is about time that we began to realise that, on the other side of the equation, there are enormous economic benefits if that environment is properly managed for tourism and its associated downstream developments. One could also throw on to the scales, on the side of the tourist industry and the protection of Kakadu National Park as an untouched wilderness, added items that are only now beginning to emerge around Australia. I refer to the 1982 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation report on toxic wastes. We are only now beginning to realise the further costs that have to be borne by the community from previous types of development in mining areas. In my State of Queensland there is a graphic illustration of that in a suburb near Brisbane, where black ooze came out of the ground during a recent development. It turned out to be dumped toxic wastes in a mine which had been covered over, the land sold and houses built on it. Now, years later, that type of operation is coming back to haunt us. Unfortunately, it is a failure not only of the previous Government, but of this Government, that there have been statements that some action would be taken on the 1982 report, when in fact none has been taken. As I said, we can throw that on to the economic scales when considering development. There is not only the immediate cash in hand return, but the downstream costs now occurring in Brisbane and increasingly around Australia that are being borne by the public purse. While the mining companies walk off with the profits, the public purse picks up the costs. In addition, one could also throw in whether there has been the massive return to the public from mining operations that we have been led to believe. In recent times some very interesting studies have been done of the infrastructure costs which are met out of the public purse. In my own State of Queensland extraordinary amounts are paid for the development of roads, railways, ports and electricity generating facilities. Many companies make use of this infrastructure. I exempt mining in terms of its use of railways because it is excessively taxed in Queensland, but in terms of, say, its use of electricity with its incredibly low, giveaway costs I doubt very much-recent studies have tended to substantiate this point of view-whether at the end of the day there is a net gain to the community. That seems to be an extraordinary and wild statement to make. But I believe that when one looks at the figures in the cold light of day one tends to the view that mining has not been the bonanza for the public purse and the community that we have been led to believe. When we are looking for new development in Australia we should give far greater emphasis and sympathy to the development of tourism which, if properly managed, is a benign, labour-intensive industry which can provide a flexibility in terms of the areas of northern Australia which are sparsely populated which most other industries-for example, mining-cannot provide. In this debate there are far more economic considerations than were suggested, for example, last night by Senator Kilgariff from the Northern Territory. He said that it was either mining or nothing. That is a simplistic analysis which no longer bears fruit in the Australian economy or in international terms. When one considers that the United States has now made tourism its central economic driving force, it does not make sense in any shape or form to suggest that there is only one lot of returns on one side of this argument. I am confident that with the preservation of at least stages one and two of Kakadu National Park-I wish it were also to be the whole of stage 3-and part of stage 3 for generations to come, those taking part in debates in this chamber in 20 or 30 years time who have had the opportunity to look at the balance sheet will see that the people who made the decision in this legislation had the foresight to realise that the world and economic realities were changing. We should make sure that we have a diverse economic structure and move quickly to position Australia as best we can in the growing market of the international tourist traveller. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(10.24) —I start with a word of mild protest. The speakers list for the debate on the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Environmental Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987 was drawn up yesterday. The debate began last night. Senator Townley, who was to speak before me, was not present at the time. He is not present this morning. Therefore I have had to go ahead of my agreed place in the list, which denies me the opportunity to answer some of the questions which may be raised by subsequent speakers, particularly by my fellow members of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources which at present is look- ing at Kakadu, Senator Townley and Senator Crichton-Browne. Leaving that aside, before I go on to the body of my speech, I would like to refer to some of the arguments put forward by previous Opposition speakers. Senator Durack referred to the interference by the Commonwealth Government since 1973. In the intervening period we have had seven years of Liberal Party rule, or what was then coalition rule. I would have thought that during that time, the Liberal Government could have stopped the trend of events in relation to the declaration of Kakadu National Park and so on. Senator Durack also implied in his speech, as I heard it last night, that when we are talking about the conservation zone we are referring only to Coronation Hill. The map of the conservation zone shows that Coronation Hill is in fact only a very small section of that zone. The zone in fact covers 35 per cent of the projected stage 3. Senator Durack was referring to the size of stage 3. The mining lobby and the Northern Territory Government told our Committee that that conservation zone covered the most highly mineralised section of stage 3-the Gimbat and Goodparla leases. I hope that I am quoting Senator Durack correctly when he said that the greatest beneficiaries from mining in modern times are those employed in it. I would remind the Senate that it is not those who are employed in mining who receive the greater part of the wealth that is created from that mining. I have known many mining and construction workers but I cannot remember ever hearing them giving thanks to, say, Peko-Wallsend Ltd or even the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd for giving them the opportunity of working in those places. Senator Durack also raised the question of a poll that was done last year by the Australian Mining Industry Council. This poll was clearly intended to produce the result that it did. The two questions asked were: Are you in favour of or against carefully controlled exploration in Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory to establish its mineral potential? Provided areas of scenic and other significance were not disturbed, would you be in favour of or against the mining, under stringent environmental conditions, of any large deposits of gold, platinum or other minerals found in Kakadu National Park? I would defy anyone to claim that those were unbiased questions. In fact, one of the representatives of the Mining Industry Council told me that the questions had been asked in that way to get a particular result, and of course that is what they did. The sample size was only roughly half the normal sample size used, say, for a gallup poll, and if that is the sort of evidence that the Council is relying on to claim what public opinion is, I think it is a pretty poor effort and it ought to know better. Senator Durack referred to another poll taken this year, which I have not had the opportunity to look at, but I do not think it is very relevant to this issue because I understand that it concerns the mining of uranium for peaceful community purposes-I think that was the wording. Uranium is not claimed, at the moment anyway, to be the major prize in the Kakadu stage 3 area. Senator Durack said further that the one and only motive of the Government was to capture votes of extreme environmentalists. Yet the future declaration of stage 3 was seen as desirable by the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and its recommendations were substantially accepted at that time by the Fraser Government, and it did act on the first part of the recommendations. I have talked to a lot of community groups over the last 18 months since taking the chair of the National Resources Committee and I would not consider any of those groups to be in any way extreme environmentalists-whatever that may mean to Senator Durack. I have found that there is a great deal of support in the community for the conservation of the Kakadu area. It surprises me that the Opposition does not understand that mining without full safeguards can wreck an area for tourism. Senator Durack —I was only quoting the news polls. Have you read them? Senator ZAKHAROV —Yes, I have. That is what I was quoting. I have read them in full and I have discussed them with the people who drew them up. I have a background in market research and in social sciences, so I know what I am talking about; I doubt whether the honourable senator does. Senator Kilgariff referred last night to locking the area off for eternity. In purely financial terms, leaving aside other considerations, we have to weigh short term gains from mining against long term gains from tourism. In terms of jobs alone, tourism is a great deal more labour intensive than mining. That may solve some of the problems in the Northern Territory. He talked about tying the hands of the Northern Territory Government behind its back. Rather, it will have the opportunity to capitalise on an asset which is known all over the world, not only because of Crocodile Dundee-although I understand that overseas interest has continued to rise since the release of the film. I think that Senator Macklin has dealt very adequately with that argument. The final statement by Senator Kilgariff to which I refer relates to the rehabilitation of Rum Jungle. Our Committee was taken to Rum Jungle by those who wanted us to see what they said was a very good example of rehabilitation. I have not seen the other sites to which Senator Kilgariff referred. I would not call Rum Jungle an example of rehabilitation. It is certainly a patching up, with perhaps a permanent band-aid. It cost the Australian Government a great deal of money. Senator Gareth Evans —Twenty million dollars. Senator ZAKHAROV —As my colleague points out, it cost $20m. It certainly has not restored the area to what it was. It has, we hope, prevented further pollution of the river system in the area, but it certainly has not been rehabilitated, as most people would understand that term. It looks a little like an overscale golf course; it is certainly not what Rum Jungle would have looked like before mining took place. I refer now to the substance of the Bills. This is a package of five Bills which implement the Government's decision to declare stage 3 of Kakadu National Park and to declare the remainder of the Gimbat and Goodparla leases as a conservation zone. These Bills will go a long way towards maintaining the integrity of stages 1 and 2 of Kakadu National Park by protecting the catchment area and the upper reaches of the Alligator Rivers, which in turn feed the wetlands which, with the escarpments, are the environment which forms the basis of a national park of world heritage standard. The water which falls on the slopes of Coronation Hill and the surrounding escarpment finds its way to the world heritage listed stage 1 of Kakadu National Park. This legislation completes a process which began with the recommendations of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that the park be established, followed by the declaration of stage 1 of the park in 1979 by the Fraser Government. I might have been happier personally if the whole of the Gimbat and Goodparla leases had been declared national park rather than 35 per cent of the area being declared conservation zone. The main difference, of course, is that mining and mineral exploration are specifically prohibited in a national park, but mineral exploration can take place in a conservation zone, and indeed is taking place now, particularly relatively large scale exploration by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and its partners at Coronation Hill. Varying claims have been made about the value of the mineral deposits in the area, but even after allowing for inflation for political reasons it is clear that there are substantial deposits of gold and lesser amounts of other precious metals. The present legislation will allow exploration to go ahead in the conservation zone without pre-empting a decision on the mining if and when the deposits are approved and the mining is deemed to be able to proceed with minimal environmental or cultural damage. In answer to a question without notice I asked on 17 September last year, Senator Ryan replied on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). I quote from that reply, in part: The location of Coronation Hill is extremely significant in relation to the catchment and world heritage wetlands. The Government is most conscious of the significance and intends to ensure that the fullest and most sensitive environmental examination takes place. If, at the conclusion of this examination, mining development is to take place, this will occur only on conditions which provide the highest level of environmental protection, not only in the particular area, but for the conservation values of the park as a whole. Although the conservation zone does not in itself provide totally for the preservation of the integrity of the park, the provisions of the Bills provide maximum possible protection while still allowing only the mineral potential to be explored-I repeat, `explored'-at this stage. Of course, there are both supporters of mining companies and conservationists who believe that exploration inevitably leads to mining, while some of the traditional owners believe that allowing exploration is quite separate from allowing mining. Only time will tell the outcome. However, since the decision to allow exploration has been taken, I believe that these Bills go as far as they can to protect the immediate environment and the adjacent national park consistent with that decision. I wish to look briefly at the contents of the Bills in this package. I have not put them in any order of significance. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 enables the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases to be available for Aboriginal land claim. This step is necessary because the leases were previously crown land leased to a succession of graziers. Any land successfully claimed by an Aboriginal land trust will, under this legislation, be able to be leased back by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for park purposes. This arrangement is working very successfully at Uluru. The legislation will allow land in the conservation zone also to be subject to Aboriginal land claims and will provide, in such cases, for arrangements to carry out exploration or, if that is the decision in the future, for mining rights. Thus the rights of Aboriginal people in the area will be enhanced by the legislation. Sacred sites will be protected under the present arrangements for registration and protection through the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority. The Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill provides for the granting of mineral exploration or mining rights in the conservation zone or areas which are or will be vested in any Aboriginal land trust. The Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill will enable the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region to advise the Government on environmental aspects of exploration and mining in the Kakadu conservation zone. This legislation is necessary because the Office of the Supervising Scientist was originally set up solely to monitor the effects of uranium mining in those areas which had been excised from Kakadu National Park for the purposes of that mining which, at the moment, means the Ranger uranium mine. So this Bill extends the area which the Supervising Scientist supervises; where he monitors the environmental consequences of mining to cover Kakadu National Park stage 3 and the conservation zone. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill and the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) will amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act in two main areas. They will prevent mineral exploration and mining in Kakadu National Park, including those interests which existed prior to the proclamation of the park. This is in keeping with Australian Labor Party policy, which has been well known to all parties concerned and is consistent with the policies on which this Government was elected. It is also consistent with the policies of ALP governments in the major States. The Bills will also enable the conservation zone to be declared over Gimbat and Goodparla, something which we might have expected the Opposition to be happy about. It could well have been declared a 100 per cent national park instead of 65 per cent. The Bills also allow for the promulgation of relevant regulations to control activities, including exploration for minerals, in the conservation zone. They allow for proper environmental impact assessments to be made and for the regulation of any possible future mining within the zone. The legislation also clarifies the relationship with the Northern Territory Government and its relevant departments, so claims that the Northern Territory is being left out are not true. I have dealt very briefly with the provisions of these Bills. The importance of the package goes far beyond the relatively small number of clauses which are included in the Bills themselves. This package enables the realisation of the near completion of a process which started with the Ranger inquiry and the resultant actions of the then Liberal-National Government in declaring Kakadu National Park, stage 1, setting up the Office of the Supervising Scientist and establishing the framework for the development of Kakadu National Park, thus enabling the opening up of the area to control tourist activity. I wish I had had time to dig out various quotations from Liberal Party Ministers of those times supporting the broad thrust of what this Government has done. This Labor Government has now consolidated a national park of world standard and ensured that future generations, not only of Australians but also overseas visitors, will be able to appreciate what we have now-the falls, the wetlands, the art and the wildlife. It is also a park which will improve as the degraded areas, which have unfortunately been referred to as `clapped out buffalo country', are rehabilitated as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has shown very adequately can be done on its experimental station at Kapalga where there are two similar fenced off, large areas. The rehabilitation in two years since the fencing has taken place to keep the buffaloes out has been absolutely phenomenal. There are still details to be finalised about the structure of management and the advisory mechanisms for the area, but I am convinced that under the capable management of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has done a magnificent job so far, even given inadequate resources at times and sometimes hostile neighbours, Kakadu National Park will become a national asset which will return not only prestige to this country but also an income, including overseas income which, unlike the return from mining, will continue into the distant future and will not exhaust its resources. It is exploitation without exhaustion, I would say. As I have said before, tourism is labour intensive and this offers far more job opportunities even in the short term, than does mining. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.43) —The Senate is today dealing with five Bills: The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987. I suppose the first question that would come to one's mind is: Why are we dealing with a package such as this? I submit to the Senate that we are dealing with it for the same reason that we dealt with the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill just before we rose for the Easter recess. It really has nothing to do with environmental considerations or national park consideration. It really deals with an image problem that the Labor Party found, with its research, that the current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has. As well as having a problem with the economic management of this nation, it was found that the current Prime Minister had a massive image problem, particularly with the young people, so it was decided after much consultation that he should be seen to be a bit of an idealist. What better thing could the Government pick on than the conservation issue because that was something dear to the hearts of the idealists of this world and particularly the young people of this nation? We have seen two things: Firstly, the pilgrimage to Kakadu National Park with half the Press gallery and, secondly, the trip to Tasmania with helicopters supplied for Senator Richardson. As a result of all that we have had these packages of legislation coming through the Senate to give some sort of credence and shore up the credence of the Labor Party and the Prime Minister's image problem. The Kakadu National Park was listed as a national park by the Fraser-Anthony Government in 1979. Indeed, I outlined a lot of that in a speech on the disallowance motion of the second plan of management in this chamber on 20 October. My opposition, and indeed that of my colleagues on this side of the chamber, is recorded to the then plan of management. I laid down in that speech the four main reasons, as I saw them, for any national park. Indeed, I will repeat them: Firstly, to preserve as widely as possible the genetic pool of our flora and fauna; secondly, to preserve for aesthetic reasons locations of unique natural beauty; thirdly, to preserve for posterity areas of historical and cultural significance; and fourthly, for recreational purposes. I do not think that anyone would disagree with those reasons for setting aside national parks. If we look at those reasons and we look at Kakadu, we can see why the then conservative government set aside Kakadu as a national park. I would suggest that there are three reasons: The wetlands, the escarpment and the Aboriginal rock galleries. As far as I am concerned, and I am quite sure as far as anyone on this side of the chamber is concerned, those areas are sacrosanct. That is what it is all about. When the boundaries for the national park were drawn up we had arbitrary lines around them. Those lines just did not encompass those areas of significance, that is, the wetlands, the escarpment and the rock galleries. Those lines put in place what was then known, and is still known, as a conservation area-or a buffer area, for want of a much simpler term. It is an area of protection for the areas of significance from the outside world. Under the original plan of management those conservation or buffer areas were subject to multi-use planning. In other words, they could be used for things other than national parks under very strict guidelines. It just so happens that in those areas we have probably one of the greatest mineral provinces left in Australia still in a rather raw state. So we now start to see why we are going through the exercise of preventing the exploration and mining of minerals in those conservation areas or buffer zones. The 1986 Bill sought to prevent the exploration and recovery of minerals within the Kakadu National Park. The 1987 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill creates stage 3 of Kakadu National Park out of 65 per cent of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. The other 35 per cent is to be declared a conservation zone in which carefully controlled exploration and mining will be allowed. What mining companies would really accept that, having known that there was a conservation zone around stages 1 and 2 in which they were originally allowed to explore but have now been denied permission to do so? They have been denied that without receiving any compensation whatsoever. Here we are going down the track saying: `Okay, you cannot do that there fellows, but now under this new legislation we will allow exploration and mining in a conservation zone around stage 3'. How could mining companies really give any credence to what the Government is saying when they have already been denied what they were originally granted in the original plan of management? What is worse, they were retrospectively denied compensation. In all of this it must be acknowledged that the Northern Territory Government, under whose auspices this matter comes, has had very little consultation with the Federal Government. The Northern Territory Government was promised consultation. These areas were placed on the World Heritage List without any consultation whatsoever despite the promise that that would happen. So we now see the shonkiness of this whole deal. We see a government which has gone off quickly in a cynical exercise to shore up its current Prime Minister. In a lot of these debates, not only in this chamber but probably more so outside, when conservation areas and national parks are mentioned the terms `primeval', `pristine' and `unique' are constantly thrown about. The use of these terms gives no real credence to what people think about this matter. During previous debates on this subject I have referred to comments made by Professor Ovington when he appeared before one of our Senate standing committees. He has said: People talk about pristine or primeval places in this world. As an ecologist of 40 years standing I claim that this is a myth: There are not really untouched places in this world . . . Everywhere in the world you have some degree of human interference, but it varies in intensity. People forget that Kakadu has been managed as a land area by Aboriginals for perhaps 40,000 years. Their impact is there. But in assessing the value of the area you assess it for what it is, not with some kind of concept of pristineness. So one of the follies of people putting various arguments on national parks and conservation areas is that some areas have never been touched and are not likely to be touched. It is as though people have in their mind the concept of a beautiful painting, and that an area has always been like it is and will remain so. Of course, that is a ludicrous concept to have at any time. Senator Sanders —At this point in time anything that has not been bulldozed should be saved. Senator COLLARD —I said right at the beginning that areas of significance are not to be touched, and nobody in this chamber of any political persuasion would want that to happen. We are talking about an area enclosed by an arbitrary line denoting conservation or buffer zones. Let me make that clear once again: Nobody who has contributed to this debate or previous debates is talking about areas of significance. We are talking about areas which are inside an arbitrary line and which are termed conservation zones or buffer zones. So we have an area which is small in the space of time, and a small speck in the total area of stages 1, 2 and 3. My understanding is that if mining were allowed to go ahead in those conservation zones it would involve but one per cent of stages 1, 2 and 3 of Kakadu National Park, and of course an insignificant area in the total land mass of Australia. Governments do have responsibilities. They have responsibilities to provide food, fibre, jobs, export earnings and all those things which we have come to expect and take for granted and which enable us to maintain our standard of living. I submit to this chamber that the challenge for this Government, and the challenge for the Opposition, which will be the next government, is to provide those necessities and at the same time preserve for future generations. That is a standard, accepted definition of conservation right around the world, and indeed that definition has literally been enshrined. So we have here an admission of failure by this Government in that it cannot provide and at the same time preserve. It is an admission of failure because this Government cannot provide for the well-being of this nation and at the same time preserve for future generations. I suggest once again that, as well as being an admission of failure, this is a cynical exercise by this Government to prop up the image of the Prime Minister. We will not accept it, and we oppose this package of Bills. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.55) —The Senate has before it a package of five Bills-two of them dealing with the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, one of them amending the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act, one amending the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and one amending the Lands Acquisition Act. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) identified in his second reading speech, in essence, six key features of this package of legislation. The first is that the decisions incorporated in this legislation involve prohibiting mining in the Kakadu National Park area, incorporating about 65 per cent of the lease areas of Gimbat and Goodparla into the park as soon as possible and establishing a conservation zone over the remainder of the lease area so that what he calls a carefully controlled program of mineral exploration and resource assessment can be undertaken. Secondly, the package of Bills enables the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region to expand his operations in consequence of the expansion of the park area. Thirdly, there is a clear prohibition of any exploration or mining in any part-I stress the words `any part'-of the Kakadu National Park. Fourthly, there is recognition in the Minister's second reading speech, although not in the legislation, of the importance of fully assessing the mineral resources of the proposed conservation zone. Fifthly, there is the introduction of some quite broadly based regulation-making power in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit operations on existing interests which the Minister claims will be used only as a last resort-a claim I find suspect. Finally, there is a declaration that under no circumstances will uranium mining be permitted within the conservation zone. Each of those claims, each of those matters, will need to be tested in the course of this debate. Yesterday, in leading for the Opposition on this matter, Senator Durack made a number of criticisms of the legislation, and I wish to indicate the centrality of three of the concerns that he has expressed. In the first place, the concept of locking away-that is what it amounts to-an area virtually one-third the size of Tasmania in effect excises it from the Northern Territory, takes it away from the control of the elected representatives in the Northern Territory, devotes it exclusively to a national park and rules out completely any further mineral assessment or mineral development in this area. Secondly, the legislation in effect provides for an expropriation of people's property rights as far as the Northern Territory is concerned and indeed expropriation of those rights without the payment of any compensation and without the recognition of the need for the payment of any compensation. Normally when property rights or the rights of individuals are expropriated by provision of the Constitution-section 51 (xxxi), if my memory serves me correctly-a compensation claim lies against the Commonwealth. In a High Court of Australia decision some years ago it was held that that is in fact not a section of the Constitution which applies within the Territories; therefore, as this expropriation is made within the Northern Territory, by some quirk of constitutional arrangement the people whose rights have been adversely affected are not able to proceed to obtain compensation for their loss of rights. Thirdly, as Senator Durack pointed out yesterday, the Government has announced that it is allowing only five years for the program of mineral assessment which it has said is important to its overall scheme of management. Senator Durack quite rightly pointed out that this is entirely inadequate in terms of time, bearing in mind the wet season in the Northern Territory and the limited time within a specified five-year period that that sort of assessment can properly be undertaken. One of the other Bills that we have before us in this package extends the responsibilities and rights of the Supervising Scientist. Anybody who has read the continuing debate in Estimates Committee D concerning the estimates of the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment will see the quite extraordinary extravagance which takes place within the Office of the Supervising Scientist. I refer, for example, to the cost to the Commonwealth of the maintenance of the facilities of the Office in Bondi in Sydney for co-ordinating work which must primarily take place in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory, the travel costs involved and the duplication of resources. I do not believe that the Government has seriously analysed the need to retain that Office's facilities in Sydney rather than to save costs by, properly, relocating them in the Territory. Whilst the Opposition is not in any way opposing the piece of legislation which extends the operations of the Supervising Scientist, because we recognise the important role that his Office plays in monitoring and advising on environmental considerations, in particular considerations related to uranium mining in the Northern Territory, nevertheless we think that the Government has to face up to the responsibilities which it has in terms of public expenditure on the work of that Office. I think it is important to understand that this package of legislation represents a fairly significant departure from previous assurances give by the Government to people involved in the Kakadu area. For instance, when Senator Gareth Evans, as Minister for Resources and Energy, wrote to Mr G. H. Sherrington, Manager-Special Projects of Geopeko, in a letter dated 8 September 1986, Senator Evans said: You can be assured that I am following this issue carefully with the long term objective of establishing a multiple land use policy for the Region which balances the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users. It is quite clear that that assurance by Senator Evans cannot possibly be sustained given this package of legislation. Multiple land use policy within the region is not proposed or provided for under this package of legislation. There is not a balance of the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users. In the judgment given by His Honour Mr Justice Beaumont in the case which he decided on 26 November 1986 between Peko-Wallsend Ltd and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), His Honour was at some pains to analyse the assurance given to Geopeko and others by Senator Gareth Evans. In fact, the letter from which I have quoted is attached as part of His Honour's judgment. His Honour found that in one of the earlier proclamations concerning stage 2 of the Kakadu National Park the Government had not properly considered or weighed the inherent natural rights of the mining companies and that the companies were entitled to relief in the form of an injunction which he granted in order to require the Government at least to honour not only its own commitments but also the elementary principles of natural justice which ought to be observed by any government when it is dealing with anybody-a mining company, an environmental interest or whatever. The Commonwealth went to the High Court of Australia to have Mr Justice Beaumont's judgment set aside and on the same date, 26 November 1986, the High Court, consisting of then Chief Justice Gibbs and Justices Mason and Wilson, considered the judgment of Mr Justice Beaumont. The High Court upheld the right of Mr Justice Beaumont to make the finding that natural justice had been denied to the companies. In its judgment it made it clear that Mr Justice Beaumont's decision should be sustained and that the Government was not entitled to avoid the obligations placed upon it by Mr Justice Beaumont in coming to his decision based upon the Government's denial of fundamental rights to the mining companies and other interests involved. The Government's decision in many ways has been described as pleasing almost nobody. For instance, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 December 1986 was headed `Kakadu decision pleases nobody'. The first few paragraphs of the article state: The Northern Territory Government, the mining industry and conservationists reacted angrily last night to the Federal Government's decision to allow exploration in Stage III of the Kakadu National Park. With its decision to permit a five-year mineral exploration program in parts of the park . . .Cabinet had sought to frame a policy in line with its recently adopted, pro-conservation stance. But the package was designed also to appease the economic rationalists who argue that it would be negligent to ignore the possibility of vast mineral wealth. It appears to have failed on both scores. The article rightly analyses this Government's decision. It finds that it is a dog's breakfast of a decision, that it pleases nobody fully in the matter and that it is not a compromise but represents the worst aspects of all the arguments put into one package. In the National Times of 14 December 1986, in an article headed `Jackeys versus Kakadu' it is stated: Prime Minister Bob Hawke has proposed a compromise on the logging of Jackeys-Marsh in Tasmania-a move that could help offset Opposition to mining in the proposed Stage Three of Kakadu National Park. This exposes that in the last couple of months the Government, in its environmental decisions, has attempted to portray itself, all of a sudden, as concerned about the environment. As Senator Collard pointed out, the Government came to the realisation that it was in substantial danger of losing part of the green or conservation vote and it took a series of decisions based upon the political expediency of the moment rather than upon a proper balance of the correct multiple land use policies which Senator Gareth Evans said he would put in place and the environmental considerations which ought also to be borne in mind. I shall shortly say something about the plan of management submitted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in relation to stage 2 of Kakadu to illustrate that precisely. The Government has stated that it needs to undertake a great deal more work and research to try to find the prospective mineral resources of Kakadu National Park as if there were no data available on this. Senator Estimates Committee D has been told on a number of occasions that that is precisely the case-the Government really does not know the situation; there is a great deal of work to be done. This is merely an excuse by the Government for putting the decision further and further down the track. I have here a lengthy and detailed report entitled `Kakadu-Its Mineral Potential' by D.A. White, a consultant based in Canberra. In dealing with the mineral resources of the Kakadu area the report says in part: About 182 mineral prospects were discovered during a short exploration period in the late 60s and early 70s in a 20,000 square kilometre area in the eastern one-third of the Precambrian Pine Creek Geosyncline that was subsequently occupied in the late 70s and early 80s by the Kakadu National Park and its extensions in the Northern Territory. Some of the pre-Kakadu prospects that have been partly drill tested in the extremely brief period have a total metal content value of about $34 billion. The Government's legislation now proposes that that will be effectively locked away on the claim that it will take five years to re-do all of this work in order to try to demonstrate what the mineral potential of that area is. So we can see both the economic irresponsibility of the Government's decision and the attempt to fool the people of Australia into believing that this five-year exploration program is needed, the evidence for which is not currently before the Government; on neither of those tests can the Government's case be sustained. The Assistant Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Mr Murray Hohnen, in a statement reported in the newspapers earlier this month, said: It's economic and geological insanity to try to shoe-horn 100 years of exploration into five. That is exactly correct. That exposes once again just how insubstantial the Government's plans and claims are about what can be achieved within this five-year exploration period that it has decided to try to set up. There is no doubt that this five-year arrangement is an absolute con trick. We know of the enormous importance of mining to the economy not just of the Northern Territory but of Australia as a whole. For instance, we know that the value of Northern Territory annual mineral output will pass $1 billion for the first time in this calendar year. In an article in the Weekend Australian of 18-19 April 1987, Mr Barry Coulter, the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, dealt in detail with the value of minerals known to be in the Kakadu area. His estimate, which I have no reason to disbelieve, is that there is a value up to the figure of about $100 billion in uranium, gold, copper, lead, palladium and diamonds. In his remarks, Mr Coulter very much supports what the White report had to say, which estimated $34 billion as being in the pre-Kakadu situation, that is, from some exploration evaluation that had taken place up to 10 years ago. Mr Coulter said in the article: It's just crazy to pass up an opportunity to make substantial contributions to the wealth of all Australians through sensible mining of Territory resources. Of course, that is absolutely correct. As I have said, one of the other matters referred to by Minister Cohen in his second reading speech touched specifically on the question of uranium. He said: I would stress that, although the Supervising Scientist has hitherto been concerned with uranium mining, there will be no uranium mining in the conservation zone. He went on to indicate that the Government is prepared to allow only the Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs uranium mines to proceed. It is interesting that the Minister should mention Roxby Downs in his second reading speech because, as Senator Jessop well knows, that was one of the classic trade-offs that the Government got itself into. It said that some uranium was good and other uranium was not good; what made it good was the imminence of a State election or the imminence of some political decision that had to be made in relation to South Australia, the Northern Territory or some forthcoming Federal election. The Government's decision about whether uranium is good or bad depends on where the uranium happens to be located and the political climate that has to be addressed at the moment the decision has to be made. It is quite correct to say that uranium is very much at the heart of the decision made in relation to mineral exploration in the Kakadu area. It is not a question of just conservation and mining in general; it is very specifically related to this Government's fixation about uranium mining-that fixation deriving not from any serious or sensible belief in the Government's mind about whether uranium mining is good or bad. The Government either has a view on that or it does not. It either believes that we should not mine uranium because it is morally incorrect and morally reprehensible to mine uranium, or it believes that we should be an active participant in the nuclear fuel cycle, along the lines recommended by Professor Slatyer in his report that he undertook on behalf of the Australian Science and Technology Council. But, no, the Government wants to have it both ways. It wants to be part of the nuclear fuel cycle. It wants to have Nabarlek, Ranger and Roxby Downs, but it does not want to have other uranium mines-not because it has a view about uranium but because it has a view about the short term politics of particular arrangements. I come to the question of whether the Government has been entirely frank and honest with people in the way in which it has proceeded to make these restrictions on the development of stage 3 and the Gimbat and Goodparla leases, which are central to this piece of legislation. If we look at the document entitled `Nomination of Kakadu National Park for inclusion in the World Heritage List', which was prepared by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in May 1980, and which was the document that formed the basis of the original submission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for the world heritage listing of Kakadu, one can go through the document in some detail without finding any significant reference to what is to become of Gimbat and Goodparla, and without finding any clear indication of what will happen to those pastoral leases. I put it to the Senate that that was a deliberate attempt to mislead people about the long term implications of the Government's whole policy in the Northern Territory and in relation to Kakadu. Senator Zakharov —The document referred to stage 2 only. Senator PUPLICK —I now turn to the document entitled `Information (in the form of a nomination) provided to the World Heritage Committee regarding Kakadu stage 2 on 17 September 1986'. If Senator Zakharov is worried about what governments had in mind sequentially, if she looks at the 1986 document she will see that on page 14 the submission indicates that the Australian Government intends to proclaim additional areas of the Alligator Rivers Region of Kakadu National Park. The document then goes on to discuss in detail what is proposed for stage 2 of Kakadu National Park. In this document, presented by the Australian Government to UNESCO dated September 1986, there is no attempt to indicate the sort of regime now being put in place for stage 3. Let us bear in mind that 17 September 1986 was about the same time as the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, was writing to people saying that the Government's intention was that there would be `a multiple land use policy for the region which balances the interests of the mining industry with those of other land users'. In other words, within a period of 10 days, we had Senator Evans telling the mining company that there would be multiple land use and a balance of its interests, and we had a submission to international bodies which in no way sought to contradict or set at nought the assurance given by Senator Evans. Yet now, within the space of a couple of months, and for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with environmental considerations but a great deal to do with political considerations, we have the interests of people being set at nought, the expropriation of their rights, the denial of natural justice and absolutely no compensation being provided for people adversely affected. The Kakadu National Park plan of management, dated 1986, which I have previously criticised as being environmentally deficient, makes a number of references to the mining industry and the way in which mining should be regulated and allowed to proceed within that area. A section on page 122, under the heading `Objectives', states: The main objective is to protect the Park's resources from exploitation. I presume that that could be taken by some to be a statement related purely to the question of mining. However, the resources of the park are to be exploited-by the tourist industry, by the arrangements entered into with the Aboriginal communities and by the five-year pseudo investigation of the resources of the area. There is to be exploitation. The park should not be regarded as having no economic value because it has economic value in terms of tourism. Honourable senators who have taken part in the debate and defended the Government's proposition have made a great deal of the fact that there is more to be earned by tourism than by mining. Yet anyone who knows anything about the operation of national parks, whether in this country or anywhere else in the world, knows that the most destructive single element for a national park is the tourist. That is well known. Indeed, countries such as the United States of America have had to create wilderness areas designed specifically to keep out tourists. They do not want people like Senator Sanders trampling over the wild flowers and causing the sort of destruction that he causes every time that he trundles around a national park, wherever it might be. They know full well that the protection of the natural environment occasionally requires that people such as Senator Sanders be kept out of it. Yet such people as the honourable senator are prepared to stand up and say that there will not be any exploitation of the national park, while knowing full well that there will be exploitation by the tourist industry. Damage will be caused by tourists and by the development of the tourist industry. The only people on whom they want to pick for their short term political gains in this matter are the mining companies which, as I said, have been very poorly treated and, indeed, substantially misled by the assurances given to them in writing by Senator Evans. At least Senator Evans was honest enough to make an evaluation of the ecological, aesthetic and spiritual value of stage 3 of Kakadu National Park, which he described in glowing terms as `clapped out buffalo country'. Anyone who has been to those areas knows that, with one or two minor exceptions such as UDP Falls and other small places, Senator Evans's description is absolutely correct. The honourable senator, who is, from time to time, in trouble for speaking his mind and giving accurate descriptions of his feelings, should be commended for having properly identified the nature of stage 3 of Kakadu, with which this legislation deals. The Opposition is, therefore, opposed to the package of Bills that has been put forward, for the reasons that I have indicated. The conservation arguments being put forward by the Government are bogus. The short term political gain that has persuaded the Government to take this course of action should not be allowed to deprive Australia of the opportunity for the proper exploitation of resources in the area, which ultimately will be to the benefit of the living standards of all Australians. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(11.25) —I was very impressed with my colleague Senator Puplick in his contribution. He has obviously given a great deal of thought to this matter, and what he said was sensible and constructive. Most Australians would, I think, regard themselves as environmentalists or conservationists-- Senator Sanders —Oh! Senator JESSOP —That is, with the exception of Senator Sanders, who is a prohibitionist. That is the problem with the conservation movement in Australia-the minority somehow come to the top of, for example, the Australian Conservation Foundation, and cause problems throughout the whole of Australia for the sensible development of our resources. Senator Sanders is typical of the prohibitionist type that happens to prevail in such organisations, which themselves are largely funded by the Commonwealth and, therefore, the taxpayer. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quite properly commented last year on such people, who are hell bent on preventing export income and sensible development in Australia. They obtain money from the taxpayers of Australia and then bite the hand that feeds them. We must try to get some sense into their heads. I have been to the Kakadu National Park area on more than one occasion-indeed, on eight occasions. The first time was before mining had commenced. There were a few exploratory drill holes-- Senator Zakharov —I wish I had been there. Senator Sanders —It must have been lovely. Senator JESSOP —I am far more informed on the subject than either of the honourable senators. Following my visit, I went to Lucas Heights to determine what work had been done on the environment in that area. I was pleased to learn that an eight-year study had been carried out into background environmental levels. That study even went to the degree of investigating in both wet and dry seasons. It also went to the trouble of carrying out biopsies on the livers of fish, feral buffaloes, birds and so on. It found that during the dry season-for example, in the billabongs that were almost completely dry-the fish had very heavy levels of lead and mineral pollution in their livers, as did the buffaloes and birds. However, somehow or other within the cycle of the year during the wet season the levels returned to normal. It is also interesting to note that in some areas in the vicinity of Kakadu National Park there is heavy metal pollution in the sea. Uranium, of course, is leeching-- Senator Sanders —Do you want to add to it? Senator JESSOP —No. I suggest that removing uranium from the soil tends to correct the problem of natural leeching that has been taking place for millions of years. Of course, that is an argument that the honourable senator would not have thought of. Subsequently, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, I visited the area on several occasions to monitor the environmental measures being taken by the various companies there. Peko-Wallsend Ltd, for example, has the most sophisticated environmental laboratory in the southern hemisphere, with former members of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in charge-- Senator Sanders —Wow! Senator JESSOP —Well, this renegade from the United States of America comes here and tries to frustrate the development of this country. He is trying to inhibit our ability to gain export income-- Senator Button —A spy. Senator JESSOP —That is an interesting comment from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Button —Senator Sanders knows that I am joking. Senator JESSOP —I am never quite sure about Senator Button. Whatever he says has an element of sincerity in it. I have always regarded him as a sincere person, and one whom we should assist in his onerous portfolio. I am sure that we encourage him in the work he is trying to do. Mention was made of the Olympic Dam project. Senator Puplick put it into perspective. The decision was made-I was happy that it was made-to proceed with that project, which means that South Australians and others will find employment. Ultimately we will see some results from the sale of the products, which will increase our export income. These Bills can be criticised. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) gave an indication, for example, of the monetary worth of the Coronation Hill mineral deposits in the Kakadu area. He said: Assuming the 1985 unit export value for Australian uranium oxide, 1985 unit ex-mine value for gold, lead and zinc, and 1985 refined metal values for platinum and palladium, the value of deposits listed above is about $32 billion. That is not an insignificant amount. We should recognise the importance-- Senator Sanders —Rough figures, I'm sure. Senator JESSOP —I know that Senator Sanders does not worry about export income, but I believe that it is a significant-- Senator Sanders —Talk about slippery figures. Senator JESSOP —We are talking about the Minister for Science, Mr Barry Jones. I imagine that he would have researched these matters quite strenuously. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Connolly, indicated that stage 1 of Kakadu National Park contains not only geomorphological formations and splendid natural flora and fauna but also magnificent Aboriginal cave paintings which are found in much of the escarpment. I was able to visit those areas with my Committee some years ago and I can vouch for the fact that there are some very attractive Aboriginal paintings in the caves there. There are sacred sites identified by the traditional owners of the area. I had a look at the Mount Brockman area, which is a sacred site. Senator Button —Did you feel comfortable in the caves? Senator JESSOP —I am a naturalist, an environmentalist. That sort of cave life has some appeal for me, particularly when I see the historic paintings by the Aboriginal people which depict in a very clever way the history of the area, the lizards, the fish and so on. When I observe Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other media programs which deal with mining in Kakadu I find that the backdrop pictures the most beautiful sections of the escarpment in stage 1. They rarely show the so-called clapped out buffalo plains, to which Senator Puplick has referred, contained in much of stage 2 and stage 3 of the park. The Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Evans, referred to that. I have said before that there is a difference between a true conservationist on the one hand and Senator Sanders and the people who make up the ruling elite of the Australian Conservation Foundation on the other. I call these people, who I believe are a minority, prohibitionists. Most Australians are conservation-minded, with the objective of preserving the things in our environment that are good. They certainly would want to exploit the resources we have in a responsible way. I was interested to hear the other day a statement that the desertification of Africa is increasing by up to 50 square kilometres per day. By the turn of the century 45 per cent of the African continent will be desert. At that stage the population of Africa will have doubled. I am very concerned that we manage our environment much more sensibly than our early history describes. When our committee was in Western Australia, for example, we were concerned that most of the rivers there are saline simply because of indiscriminate farming practices in earlier days. We must remember that the future of Australia is quite significant. We cannot afford to denigrate our environment as was done in earlier days. These days all companies, including mining companies and other development companies, are conscious of the need to build into their capital requirement some provision for rehabilitation. Senator Sanders —A small provision. Senator JESSOP —It is not small. Ten to 15 per cent of the capital estimates of the mining companies I have had anything to do with is devoted to the regeneration of the environment. Senator Zakharov —Only after it was enforced by legislation. Senator JESSOP —I visited Fraser Island. In many respects I regret that development there was stopped by the Fraser Government. I observed that the regenerated area of Fraser Island was far better than the natural environment. The company took the trouble of identifying the natural vegetation. It planted seeds in the same proportion as existed in other parts of the island. When I was there the regrowth of the regenerated area was quite commendable and far better than the original vegetation. I pay some compliment to these companies for their consciousness of the need to rehabilitate these areas. Another question is forestry operations. Rumours have been going around that the Hawke Government has done a preference deal with the Australian Democrats-I do not know whether that would be on at all; far be it from me to be categoric about it-in order to delay or prevent the formation of a nationally based green party. I know that some power brokers within the Australian Labor Party have given this some consideration. I have noticed in the past few months how the Government not only has closed off most of the Kakadu area from mining but also has stopped sand mining at Shelburne Bay in Queensland and logging in the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests of Tasmania, and has indefinitely delayed the extension of wood chipping export licences to the Eden forest industry in southern New South Wales. The Government has deliberately threatened jobs in the so-called blue collar industries by pandering to the prohibitionists amongst the greenies of Australia. The union movement has supported the forestry industries in Eden and Tasmania. I have with me a document entitled `A Trade Union Position: The Facts About Eden'. The following unions, it states, are totally behind responsible forestry operations in Australia: The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Australasian Society of Engineers, the Australian Timber Workers Union, the Australian Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association, the Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australia, the Federated Iron Workers Association of Australia, and so it goes on. There are about another half a dozen significant unions listed which are very much in favour of responsible forestry operations in Australia, operations which contribute tremendously to the export earnings of this country. The forestry industry has responsible management techniques. Senator Sanders —Why do they have to keep going into new forests all the time? Why haven't they been regenerated? Senator JESSOP —I have plodded through more forests in Australia than Senator Sanders has, and I have seen how forest management has changed over the years in recognition of the need to preserve the environment. Foresters are, and have to be, conservationists, otherwise they would cut themselves out of work. Senator Sanders —And they have. Senator JESSOP —Oh, do not be ridiculous. The forestry industry employs some 90,000 people throughout Australia. Its total annual earnings including exports are of the order of $7 billion. It is desperately trying to provide Australia with forestry products and to save the necessity of importing. It seems to me that what we are talking about here is a very serious matter, particularly in view of the fact that the trade unions of Australia are in favour of responsible development. I notice that a survey of the membership of the Conservation Foundation was broken down as follows: Blue collar workers, one per cent; tradesmen, less than 3 per cent; managerial, about 5 per cent; and academic and professional, over 50 per cent. That is where these bright, academic people, who have no idea at all about practical matters, are supporting the movement against the development of Australia. As far as I am concerned, it is a disgrace. I think these people, who do not recognise the need to develop our resources for the benefit of employment, for the benefit of the trade union movement-which is in favour of these projects-and for the benefit of export income, are unAustralian and ought to be ashamed of themselves. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(11.42) —Yes, I was formerly unAustralian but I am now Australian, and I have the papers to prove it. And I think that is the whole point: I come from a place-the United States of America-which fought these battles years ago. At this time, in 1987, the people of the United States are very pleased and very proud that the so-called prohibitionists that Senator Jessop mentioned actually did fight hard to save Yosemite, Yellowstone, Sequoia and all the other national parks in the United States which were preserved in perpetuity. There was never any discussion of how much the minerals in Yellowstone were worth. Actually I will have to take that back, as there was in the early days. When Yellowstone was first set up in the late nineteenth century, it was run for seven years by an entrepreneur, a local concessionaire, who was selling off the timber and the minerals and anything he could. The United States Congress heard about this and got so incensed that it sent in the United States Cavalry with guns and sabres to patrol and to protect Yellowstone for 30 years. That type of care is sadly lacking in Australia. In fact we do not even have the concept of national parks established here. We have national parks in the States of Australia which are not national parks in the true sense, but are simply State preserves set aside temporarily because nobody wants them, because the mineral industry does not want them, because the timber industry does not want them and, in Tasmania's case, because the Hydro Electric Commission does not want them. They are residual areas set aside as `national parks', but there is no real commitment to them, as we saw in Tasmania. Senator Zakharov —There is by some governments. Senator SANDERS —As Senator Zakharov says, there may be by some governments, but those governments are quite rare. In Tasmania we saw the Lake Pedder National Park rescinded by parliamentary action so that it could be flooded. Now, in a very cynical action, it has been returned to national park status. I am afraid that Australia is still very much in the throes of a cowboy mentality regarding its own development. Senator Button —You would be a good person to judge. Senator SANDERS —I am a good person to judge, having come from a cowboy country. The point is that Australians still have a rather colonial attitude towards the country and its resources. I suppose this is understandable. For years it was a colony of Great Britain and was considered to be just a large open-pit mine suitable only for exporting raw materials, as cheaply as possible, to the mother country. After World War II, when we were abandoned by Great Britain, we pledged our fealty to our great and powerful friend, the United States, and so transnationals from that country now have open slather with our natural resources. Only recently have the people of Australia started to object and to realise that this is wrong, that we should not be considered just a giant open-pit mine by the rest of the world. Senator Collard made much of the fact that there is very little pristine wilderness left, and that is true. But I do not see how he can then go on to argue that, because we have already to some extent changed the nature of what is left, which is close to being wilderness, we should then allow open slather by the mining companies, which is basically what he was calling for. That does not follow. Senator Puplick carried on with his pie in the sky estimates of how much money we would lose if we did not mine every inch of Australia. Rip-off artists always maintain that billions of dollars will be lost if they do not get their way. We heard the Hydro Electric Commission say that the Tasmanian economy would go down the drain if the Franklin Dam was not built, that we would freeze to death in the dark if we did not get the Franklin Dam and that it was essential to our well-being. Of course we see now that even though we do not have the Franklin Dam we have hundreds of megawatts of surplus power. So the statements that we will lose massive amounts of anything if we do not exploit our natural resources simply do not hold up in the light of history. I deplore the attitude of the right wingers over here. I cannot call them the Opposition any more. I wonder whether Senator Puplick really does speak for the Opposition, as he maintained he did. Its attitude is basically that, if people can get a buck out of something, they should get it. They should squeeze it out. If they can get a buck out of selling their grandmothers' molars, they should get it. I reject this entirely. This gives us a bit of a problem with this legislation. The problem is: Should we reject it or accept it? Should we reject it because basically it allows mining in a very sensitive area of Australia's environment? Of course to reject it would mean that we would have to side with the troglodyte Right, which goes against the grain. Furthermore, we would have to take a change in the environmental movement with a future government. The way what used to be the Opposition is going it looks increasingly unlikely that the right-wingers will take over government after the next election, but if they did we would be in far worse shape than we are now. This legislation is nowhere near strong enough as it allows mining in sensitive areas, but if we accept it the conservation movement can hopefully work with the Government and pressure the Government and make it do the right thing. While I am on this subject, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, listening to citizens and trying to accommodate their wishes. In this case the citizens are environmentalists who want to stop the wanton destruction of the rainforests and the timber resources of Tasmania, the wanton destruction in Kakadu and the wanton destruction of the Shelburne Bay area in north Queensland. There is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister listening to the people, to the voters and to his constituents. Perhaps this is so rare amongst those on the Opposition side that they find it absolutely unthinkable, but it is what politics is all about-we listen to the people who put us in office. I think Bob Hawke is perfectly entitled to listen to this very large group. It is not a minority group. The number of people who are interested in saving something for their children is growing all the time. I wonder about people such as Senator Jessop. I presume he has children. I wonder whether he is really thinking of their future or only of his own short term political chances or perhaps the political chances of his Party, because what we are talking about here is nothing that will benefit us directly; it is for the future, for perpetuity. The Bills before us, as has already been mentioned, are to set up an extension to Kakadu National Park stage 3 and at the same time to allow mining. To me this is incongruous in the extreme. It was incongruous when the original Kakadu National Park was set up with an excision for a uranium mine within the boundaries. This is absolutely insane. The Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in 1977 allowed the Ranger uranium mine to go ahead on the East Alligator River, but it recommended that the total catchment of the South Alligator River be incorporated in a park. The fact that this very valuable catchment will now be impinged upon by mining is what is disturbing the environmental movement. If this entire catchment were preserved it would be a very valuable and rare thing indeed. It would be one of the few, if not the only, complete catchments of its type in the world included in their entirety, unpolluted, unaltered. Thus it would be a scientific treasure, a treasure for the country in general. A catchment is an ecological unity. It should be an ecological unity. We cannot separate it into little bits and pieces and say that we will carry out industrial activity in the head-waters but preserve the untouched nature of the waters downstream. It simply does not work that way. Senator Button —You aren't suggesting it is an ecological unity as defined, are you, Senator? Senator SANDERS —As defined? Senator Button —Yes. Senator SANDERS —It is now. Senator Button —But stage 3 is not necessarily part of an ecological unit. Senator SANDERS —Not as it is outlined because it will have mining activities in the middle of it. Senator Button —No, but even if it didn't. Senator SANDERS —It would be, yes. A catchment basin is a definition of an area. As such, it has the same type of activity going on in the entire areas at this moment, which excludes mining. As soon as we allow mining the topsoil is disturbed and there is more erosion, even if we do not have the difficulties experienced with the extraction of gold, which causes a tremendous amount of environmental despoilation. The treatment of ore in gold mining requires the use of large quantities of dangerous chemicals such as cyanide. In the process contaminants such as sulphides are produced. The mining industry has been campaigning on this issue all over the country. Basically the industry wants open slather, as it has always had. It wants no controls whatsoever. Any controls bother it. We see Peko-Wallsend Ltd in the forefront of this campaign. Basically, it wants a return to the working conditions and the economic conditions of the nineteenth century. It would like to limit the rights of the workers. It has limited the rights of the workers. It has fired many of them. It also would like to maintain its divine right to dig that which basically belongs to the people out of the ground and sell it at a profit. The industry has been waging an orchestrated campaign to gain access to all national parks for mining. At the moment it has access to something like 95 per cent of the country. It wants all national parks to be available for mining. It has taken advantage of the Government's concern over the balance of payments to push at this time despite the existence of considerable reserves outside national parks. It is obvious that it is a political campaign. It is not based on its desire, or even need, to make money on these operations at this time. The mines in stage 3 would threaten the entire wetlands of stage 2, and the monsoon climate would create an impossible management situation. We were told when Ranger commenced operations that there would be absolutely no problems there with water. Of course, we know, and I think even members of the Opposition would have to admit, that there have been great problems with water at Ranger and that there are continuing and ongoing problems with water there. Can we believe the assurances of the Government and the mining industry that there will be no problems at Coronation Hill? We cannot. At Coronation Hill, the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is proposing to put the tailings dam behind a sandstone ridge. On visual examination that sandstone already appears to be leaching, and the idea of a clay base for the dam is another technological fix that has been tried at Ranger, and failed. Gold mining also requires large amounts of water. In the dry season this will dramatically affect the flow of the South Alligator River. There will inevitably be ecological effects all through the catchment. The Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) has described stage 3 as clapped out buffalo country. We have heard that description over and over. This is akin to Robin Gray's description of the Franklin River as a brown, leech ridden ditch. It is a political statement, not a scientific statement or an environmental or ecological statement and I think it should be ignored. The World Heritage Committee noted that the Australian Government intended to proclaim additional areas of the Alligator River as part of the National Park and recommended that such areas be included in the site. It noted the enormous value of a total untouched catchment, as I have noted. This is essential to the argument, to the totality of the untouched catchment. The area itself has considerable nature conservation value. There is a number of endangered species there, such as the hooded parrot and the peregrine falcon. The area is of great cultural Aboriginal significance. It represents a meeting of coastal and inland influences in the art of the area. It is of a different style to that of stages 1 and 2. George Chaloupka in 1980 documented the importance of the area to the Aboriginal people and stated that `this heritage is perhaps unequalled elsewhere outside Kakadu'. Stage 3 should be proclaimed as a national park. It should be included in its entirety. The Northern Land Council wishes to see the area included in the park after making appropriate land claims. We strongly support this position. We would like to see the whole thing brought into national park status. This package of Bills will create a portion of the area as a national park and allow mining to operate in other areas. Our major concern is that they do not allow the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service to have control of the conservation zone. We would need further amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to bring this about. One good aspect is the changes to the Lands Acquisition Act which will make the conservation zone available for claim. We are concerned that a ministerial committee, including the Department of Resources and Energy, will actually have control of stage 3. It will be advising the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. We would like to see the Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service have more autonomous control over what goes on. We are also concerned that the Commonwealth has been negotiating with the Northern Territory Government to get it involved in day to day management. It is patently obvious that the Northern Territory Government has no will properly and environmentally to manage any area. I have been to the Territory and I have talked to the former Minister for Conservation, Mr Hatton, who is now the leader of the Northern Territory Government. He has absolutely no environmental concerns whatsoever. His concerns are strictly in terms of the mining industry. The Bills before us are numerous. We have had a good look at them. We have been concerned about the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987, which forbids the mining of any minerals in stages 1 and 2. We are a little concerned about clause 7, which is headed `No compensation payable'. It reads: Notwithstanding any law of the Commonwealth or of the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth is not liable to pay compensation to any person by reason of the enactment of this Act. On the face of it, I think that is a wonderful thing. I do not think that the mining companies deserve any compensation for this because it would be about the same as compensating a mugger for not assaulting me any more. Frankly, I think the mining companies have already got plenty out of these areas. They get far more than they deserve. They pay far too little for what they get from the ground and they do not restore the areas anywhere nearly as well as they should. However, having said that, it does worry us a little that this clause might be used by Peko-Wallsend or someone else to obtain an injunction against legislation being enacted, thus frustrating its environmental provisions. We have talked to a number of people, including the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans. We have their assurances that this is not the case, that because we are dealing with the Northern Territory and not a State there will not be a problem in this regard. I sincerely hope that they are right. We had some concerns about the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987. We were particularly concerned that an environmental impact statement was not required under this legislation. I feel that environmental impact statements should be required for anything impacting on the environment in Australia whether it is a State or Federal issue. The amendments which we considered proved to be almost unworkable in terms of what we were trying to do. They had disadvantages in that they cut out some desirable sections. We were willing to proceed with the EIS amendment and we have had constructive discussions with the Government. The Government has shown us the provision relating to mineral exploration in the conservation zone and the ways in which the environment will be protected. I feel that if the Government followed those rules, the environmental impact would be kept to a minimum. However, I am worried that the Government will not follow the rules. I am afraid that it is up to the environmental movement to make sure that it does so. Senator Jessop seems to feel that the environmental movement is highly paid by the Government. In fact, millions of people in the environmental movement have sacrificed a great deal of their time and money to make sure that something remains of the environment for the future. It will be up to the environmental movement and us, as much as we can, to keep the Government honest in this respect. The remaining Bills are enabling Bills which simply allow the measure to go ahead. As I have said, we have agonised over the legislation. There is a temptation to reject it entirely and to demand that the Government stick to its original promise the first of which I noted was made on 18 November 1983 in the form of a media release issued by the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which stated: In taking these steps, the Government is implementing recommendations made by the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry in respect of Kakadu National Park. Of particular importance is the inclusion in the Park of virtually the whole South Alligator River Catchment, with its internationally significant wetlands. I only wish that the Government had kept that promise. It has not done so. It has given us a difficult situation. It has given us part of a park, having ripped the heart out of the rest of it. It would be tempting to reject the legislation, but, on balance, that would have its dangers. I cannot hope that the Government will be sincere in its efforts. We must rely on the public pressure which will be brought to bear on the Government if it tries to backslide. Therefore, we will support the legislation. However, we have concerns about the Government's sincerity. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.03) —This group of Bills relates to the Kakadu National Park area. The purpose of one of the Bills is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 to prohibit exploration and mining in the Kakadu National Park. The background of the Kakadu National Park was that the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended in 1977 that a major national park be established in the Alligator Rivers Region of the Northern Territory to provide protection for rare species of flora and fauna, rare habitats and important Aboriginal art and archaeological sites of significance. The Commonwealth implemented that recommendation in April 1979 by declaring stage 1 of Kakadu under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. This area covered some 6,144 square kilometres and incorporated the form of the Awonga and Alligator Rivers wildlife sanctuaries. In 1984, stage 2 of the park was added-an additional area of just under 7,000 kilometres. Of course, there is now stage 3. It makes me wonder just where this park will stop unless there is a change of attitude by the Federal Government. Very large areas are involved in this issue. The area involved in the Kakadu National Park is about a third as big as Tasmania. If it were superimposed on the eastern seaboard of Australia, it would run from below Wollongong to the north of Newcastle and would be about half as wide in area as it is long. Therefore, it is a very large area to lock up permanently, particularly when one takes note of what minerals of significance are there. It is a very valuable area, and it is one of the most highly mineralised areas in the world. I do not say that every area which contains a mineral should be dug up immediately. I do not for a moment suggest that anything but sensible mining and exploration be allowed to be carried out. The Liberal Party of Australia does not suggest wanton destruction of mineral areas. However, I have seen areas that have been rehabilitated following mining which look better than comparable areas that have remained untouched. I know that a senator may interject and say that some areas do not look better, but the modern practice these days is that rehabilitation is part and parcel of any mining that is done. I do not believe that the area of the Kakadu National Park is as fragile as many environmentalists would have us believe. Having been there and coming from the beautiful State of Tasmania, I agree with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) that much of the area could be described as clapped out buffalo territory. It could well be that the area could be examined without any adverse effects and that a multiple land use attitude could be adopted. That is what the Government should be doing. Senator Zakharov —But you saw what happened when the buffalo were excluded. Senator TOWNLEY —Yes, I did. I agree with Senator Sanders that the term `clapped out buffalo territory' is a political description of the area. I am trying to get the picture across to people who may never have the opportunity of going to the area. I have used the word `boring' to describe it. When one comes from a place such as Tasmania and areas such as Wilsons Promontory in Senator Zakharov's State, which are tremendously attractive, one can see that they leave the Kakadu National Park area for dead. The Government has decided, for several reasons, to restrict activity in the area so that it will get votes from people in Melbourne and Sydney who would not otherwise vote for it. The Bill that seeks to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit exploration and mining will also amend the Act to retroactively ban mineral exploration. That to me is a retrospective action by the Government. People who had leases had a right to expect certain things. For instance, Peko-Wallsend Ltd was told in a judgment by Mr Justice Beaumont of the Federal Court that it could enter into certain areas of land. I believe that it had a letter from the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority to the effect that a sacred site had been slapped right on top of some of the company's best leases. That makes me wonder just how accurate some of the sacred site applications and impositions are in the Northern Territory. The whole situation is crazy. Senator Jessop —Is the Government reimbursing the company for that? Senator TOWNLEY —No. The Bill expressly stipulates that no compensation will be paid to any company that had leases and which may have spent a considerable amount on that area. I think that the conservationists of this country have forgotten that the area would not have been a national park at all except for the explorers and the miners who went in there and made it possible for people to get to these areas. As I have said, it is a major world mineral source; it is a major area of uranium for the world. It is particularly appropriate that we are considering this matter some 12 months after the incident which occurred at Chernobyl in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Some people believe that nuclear power is very much a better way to go in this world, particularly for base-load electricity, rather than the burning of fossil fuels. For a government to say it is going to lock up one of the major sources of this mineral is really beyond my comprehension. We should be very much involved in the attitude of the Opposition on the uranium fuel cycle in regard to both mining and experimentation for peaceful purposes only. I think we should also be involved in the uranium enrichment area as well and maybe even in the production of fuel rods and things that could be shipped to other parts of the world for use in other areas. I am pleased to see that in England just recently Mr Peter Walker, who is the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Energy, has announced that it is going ahead with a new, quite large pressurised water reactor nuclear power plant called Sizewell B. In the report that Sir Frank Layfield made about this plant, published on 26 January this year, he said, amongst other things: There is a national interest in maintaining an economical and continuous supply of electricity. The Board- he is talking about the Central Electricity Generating Board of the United Kingdom- has shown that building the proposed PWR is likely to save generating costs and to provide a base load station to meet capacity need. At the moment some 20 per cent of England's power is produced by nuclear means. Senator Crichton-Browne —The country that has suffered the most devastation from atomic bombs is Japan. Senator TOWNLEY —That is right. Senator Crichton-Browne says that Japan is also one country that realises that producing power from nuclear sources is a much better way to go than to keep burning fossil fuels. I want to talk about one aspect of burning fossil fuels in a moment. Once this Sizewell B plant gets going in the United Kingdom, I believe that its power generation from nuclear sources will then be nearly one-quarter. Recently overseas it has been shown that one plant in the United States has been producing the highest ever output for a year-it came out at 2c a kilowatt-hour. That plant has been operating for quite a long time. Most probably these days with environmental impact costs and things that have to be done before a plant is installed one would not get that kind of low figure, but if the world adopted one type of nuclear power plant and gradually developed it into something that was very safe, that everybody used and knew how to operate, I believe the cost of producing such plants would come down. That is something I think that this country should be promoting. Apart from the Chernobyl disaster, I believe that the nuclear industry has been remarkable in its lack of accidents. When we consider the number of people who are killed in this country and in other countries in coal mining accidents, we have to realise that obtaining coal for power plants is a very dangerous thing indeed. I believe that we really have to look at the production of power. The Kakadu National Park area could become the focus of world uranium production if any government so desired. The production of power from nuclear sources is much preferable to fossil fuels which for one thing can lead to what is called acid rain. I would like to take the opportunity just to say a little about acid rain because it is a major problem, particularly in the northern hemisphere. We are fortunate that it does not occur to a large extent in Australia. We do not want to let acid rain become an environmental problem in this country. So we really should be taking action now to prevent its origin. It is much better to solve this problem now than to attempt to solve it later because it can cause billions of dollars worth of damage. Other countries have delayed the introduction of proper solutions for many years and they have been left with quite dead lakes. Acid rain has endangered animal and plant life and has caused lower crop yields; trees are dying in Europe and there is a lot of metal corrosion. The problems are very large indeed. I believe that is the kind of thing environmentalists should be talking about. They should be saying: `Why are you not stopping production of power with fossil fuels and using nuclear power?'. If they really thought about it, that is exactly what they would do. Senator Zakharov —They are suggesting other alternatives. Senator TOWNLEY —The honourable senator is dead right; they are suggesting other alternatives. I have looked at the alternatives that they have suggested, but to get the base power load that is needed for any sizable country and even developing countries is impracticable with any other means but nuclear or fossil fuel. Senator Jessop —And uneconomic. Senator TOWNLEY —And uneconomic. I visited the largest solar plant in this world, which is in California. To get just 10 kilowatts of power, which is not very much indeed, takes up a huge area and so that, in itself, is a pollutant with all this area being taken up. If we try to put a solar plant in Kakadu National Park, I suppose the Government would say: `No, you can't do that, you may tread on a frog, or something'. Some of the things that happen in this country at the moment are quite out of line with sensible thinking. Two-thirds of England's acid emissions are from the Central Electricity Generating Board. This body knows that it has got to go to nuclear plant. As I have said, it uses coal fired power stations to generate 80 per cent of its electricity at the moment. The cost to that Board of decreasing acid emissions will be nearly $2 billion, but that will still leave 10 per cent of sulphur emissions being released into the atmosphere. Canada, of course, gets a lot of its acid rain from below the border, but the cost there is something like $Can1 billion every year due to loss of jobs and effects on the economy. Ontario Hydro, which is a government run instrumentality, will spend something like $Can5 billion in the 1990s on emission control devices to try to eliminate the source of acid rain. It therefore laughs at the joint Canadian-United States Government program which proposes to clean up the entire United States for a similar amount. It knows just how expensive it will be to clear up the air that is coming to Canada and causing the trouble that I will talk about in a moment from south of the border. Senator Jessop —It also threatens the ozone layer. Senator TOWNLEY —Senator Jessop mentions that some of the chemicals that come up interact with the ozone of the atmosphere. I do not think it has been entirely proven because it happens very slowly, but if it does happen and the ultra violet rays are allowed to get through into the atmosphere, the incidence of cancer and the increase of diseases in this world will be horrendous. It may well be that if we continue to pump out all this muck from fossil fuel burning into the atmosphere it will be too late to do anything-the ozone will be gone, the damage will have happened and it will be irreversible. Senator Crichton-Browne —What do the conservationists say about that? Senator TOWNLEY —Again, they put their heads in the sand. The conservationists do not say anything about that; they seem to just ignore that altogether. I think it is imperative that we understand the cause of acid rain. Very briefly, acid rain is caused by the release of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide into the atmosphere. These compounds react with photochemical oxidants, especially hydrogen peroxide and the ozone, as Senator Jessop mentioned a moment ago. It converts the sulphur dioxide into sulphuric and sulphurous acids and turns the nitrogen dioxide into nitric acid. That is pretty strong stuff when mixed with a bit of water, and it then falls to the earth as acid rain. We have to restrict as much as we can-we should be doing it in this country as well-the dumping of sulphur and nitrogen into the atmosphere from all sources. The answer is to put less chemicals into the air. Some people say: `Why don't you put a higher smoke-stack so that it goes further away?'. It does, of course, send the pollutants further away from their source, but that is not the solution. A lot of the acid rain problem in Europe and North America and in the worst affected countries is caused by emissions from other countries. The countries that are emitting the sulphur and nitrogen are effectively treating the polluted countries as dumping grounds for their waste products, and they do not seem to want to help. So I think we should be taking action in Australia; just sending it further afield in the world is not the answer. We should realise that this world is a limited area, and we must play our part in not polluting it any more than we should. Acid rain is definitely then a world concern, because not only does the precipitation of acid directly affect plants; it also causes enormous damage to the chemistry of the soil. Somebody described it as a legally produced equivalent of agent orange-it is that bad. The effect on soil is one of the major problems of acid rain and it is believed that one day, if it continues, it will kill all aquatic life in lakes, streams, rivers and lochs and so affect all creatures further up the food chain. That day may not be very far ahead of us. In Canada, `old' or normal rain used to be slightly acidic-if I can be technical for a moment-with a pH of 5.7. This was in equilibrium with a small amount of carbon dioxide content in the air and it yielded a dilute calcium bicarbonate solution when it encountered bedrock or soils. This was all right because it provided the natural buffer required for the acid. `Modern' acid rain has an acid content some 30 times stronger than the old rain, and it has a pH of 4.0. Without getting too technical, this acid rain when it falls is about as strong as vinegar; it accelerates erosion and releases aluminium particularly and other things such as calcium, magnesium and iron from the soils and into the water. The excess acid itself also goes into the water. We do not get the buffering that was there in days gone by. What happens then to the aquatic life is that the aluminium goes into, say, a lake and mucus develops on the gills of the fish and they do not last very long. Even if the acidity and the aluminium are not sufficient to kill the fish-and in many cases they are-they are so severe that fish do not spawn. Some Canadian rivers have not contained fish for over 20 years. It is virtually impossible to reverse this situation once it gets going. Once a lake contains acid it will stay that way, particularly while acid rain continues to fall. In Scotland they have had trouble around some of the lakes. They have been putting limestone around some of them to try to counteract the acidity. The limestone reacts with the acid rain, which becomes neutralised. Of course, this is only a stop gap solution and obviously is very expensive. The causes of acid rain should be stopped at the outset and not after the problem has appeared. In this country we are in a fortunate position, as I said, because we have few people spread over a large area and many of the prevailing winds take away from our country any of the acid rains that we develop. I do not think we can allow this thing to continue. It is just not good enough from a world point of view, and perhaps I am sounding like a conservationist at the moment, to allow- Senator Crichton-Browne —A conservative. Senator TOWNLEY —I think that many engineers-and I am one-who are in favour of nuclear power are definitely conservationists. They realise that less damage would be done to this world if we looked at a place like Kakadu and realise that its uranium can be of benefit to the world and were not scared of it because of the lack of understanding, which I think is the main problem facing the nuclear industry. It is my feeling that we really must move as soon as possible towards as much nuclear power and hydro-electric power as this world can generate. I realise that we will never get to a situation where we can get rid of all coal-powered plants. There are certain political pressures on governments to keep them, particularly in a place like England where the miners have such a big influence on the alternative government-or I think it is the alternative government over there. We will never get rid of coal-powered plants entirely. We need either oil-or coal-fired stations to respond quickly to peak load demands for electricity. It is no good people going around saying that they will use less, because that is just not facing reality. There will be a continuing increase in the demand for power. As I have said already, solar power is a big polluter in that it takes up a lot of space. It does not produce large quantities of noxious waste, but it does need large tracts of land to take the mirrors. Solar power is not very efficient. As I have said, it is no answer to the base load power requirements of this world. I believe that it must be hammered into the heads of environmentalists and perhaps into the Government that they must stop equivocating and make a stand on nuclear power one way or the other. As Larry Birbeck of Saskatchewan put it: The environmentalists will argue against acid rain on the one hand and against nuclear energy on the other hand; so the environmentalists will have to get their act together. They will have to make up their minds whether they want to have all this acid rain spewing out or whether they want to run this terrible risk of a nuclear holocaust. That is very crucial. I do not believe that it is necessary to run the risk of a nuclear problem. As I said earlier, I think that, if we can design and manufacture one sensible nuclear power reactor, use it throughout the world and improve it over the years, the safety of this means of power generation will go from where it is already-which I say is good-to an even better standard. Nuclear power then is very much tied up with Kakadu. I believe that is the main reason, and the real reason, why environmentalists do not want to see any action at Kakadu. They want to keep uranium in the ground because, some of them say, it might be used for unpeaceful purposes, for weapons of some kind or another. Of course, I am not suggesting that for a minute. I suggest that in this country we should continue to ensure as much as we possibly can that the spread of nuclear weapons does not continue. Nuclear power is the subject of a number of unfounded and untrue rumours. However, it is something that this world is going to have. I have noticed a lot of hysteria about it over the last few days because of the Chernobyl situation. I suppose that is something that could happen again if the USSR does not alter the design of its plants and make for better containment if they again reach a critical stage. I have been sidetracked somewhat from the actual discussion of these Bills, but I thought it was important at this time to point out that the Bills have been drafted for environmentalists. However, it is the environmentalists who are imposing more damage on this world from Australia by not releasing some of the minerals in the Kakadu area than would be the case if they allowed sensible, multiple land use in the Kakadu National Park area. It would be of much benefit to the people of the Northern Territory, including the Aborigines, and it would be of benefit to this whole country. I am not looking forward to the passage of these Bills in any way whatsoever. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.30) —The Senate is debating cognately a number of Bills that touch upon stages 1, 2 and 3 of Kakadu National Park. They are the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1987, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Amendment Bill 1987, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 and the Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987. As we know, the thrust of this package of legislation is, to all intents and purposes, simply to do three things: To lock up perhaps $70 billion worth of resources in the Northern Territory within the boundaries of the park, to grant the opportunity to the Aboriginal community to claim land in Gimbat and Goodparla, and to confiscate development rights and deny compensation to those mining companies which quite properly, quite legally and quite legitimately were granted exploration permits and titles in those areas. This legislation retrospectively takes away their rights. The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is referred to in the second reading speech as follows: The background to this legislation is the landmark decision- a landmark it is- made by the Government in the latter part of last year, concerning Kakadu National Park and the adjoining Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. Essentially the decision involved prohibiting mining in the park, incorporating about 65 per cent of the lease areas into the park as soon as possible, and establishing a conservation zone over the remainder of the lease areas so that a carefully controlled program of mineral exploration and resource assessment can be undertaken. In other words, two-thirds of an area described by the present Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) as clapped out buffalo country has now been elevated to an area judged to be of world significance in terms of its natural beauty and its uniqueness. It is now to be removed from the area that might be explored or exploited and from which the resources that all Australians need may be obtained. This package of legislation provides a basis for implementing the Government's decision. To quote from the second reading speech: The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987 will enable some 4,000 square kilometres of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases to be included in Kakadu National Park, and a conservation zone to be declared over the remainder . . . This is 4,000 square kilometres of land so unique, so beautiful and so fertile that it will not even maintain stock. Its contribution so far is to maintain scrawny, scrappy feral buffalo. Its other present attribute, as I say, is that it contains perhaps one of the most significant gold and platinum deposits in the world, not to mention the molybdenum and uranium deposits that have not been explored. The second reading speech continues: The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill will ensure that the Gimbat and Goodparla areas are available for Aboriginal land claim. Having reclaimed their heritage, as they would have us believe, for financial reasons they will then lease the area back to the Government. They claim it by right and, having done so, lease it back. The land clearly has some intrinsic basic relationship with them but as long as they get it, as long as they can claim it and as long as they can extract royalties and benefit from tourism in the area, they are quite happy to give it back to the Government, back to the Australian people, back to the taxpayers. They are happy as long as they are getting their share of the gold coins. The second reading speech goes on: The Lands Acquisition Amendment Bill 1987 will enable exploration and mining rights to be granted in the conservation zone after lodgment of a land claim, and allow such interests to be granted if that land should become Aboriginal land. So the sequence of events is this: The area is declared a park and is given to the Aboriginal communities; the mining companies come along and explore it, at least in the conservation area, and judge what resources it has; and the Aboriginal communities can do a deal with the mining companies so that they end up with the money and everybody else ends up with the land. The speech goes on to say: The establishment of Kakadu National Park has not been a precipitous action, but has involved careful government considerations based on detailed investigations, inquiry and public comment over many years. In December last year, the Government announced its intention to further extend the park to include 65 per cent of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. I do not know what public comment the Government has drawn upon to make its determinations; I do not know with whom it has co-operated and with whom it has had discussions. I know that the Northern Territory Government has been treated with total disdain and total disregard, treated as irrelevant. The views it has put have been categorically and absolutely ignored. Not one of its recommendations has even been contemplated, never mind considered and implemented. The Northern Territory Government has complained on many occasions that it has been treated as some poor mendicant Territory government that is immaterial and inconsequential in the determinations and deliberations of the Federal Government in relation to its decisions in respect of the Kakadu region. The Federal Government made up its mind as to what it was going to do in spite of propositions put to it by an overwhelming number of people, and it pursued for ideological, philosophical and hell-bent purposes the decision it intended to make from the beginning. Its co-operation is a facade. If that is what Hawke calls government by consensus, I would hate to see him in a confrontation. The speech says: The legislative amendments will allow the new part of Kakadu National Park to be claimed. Land in the park successfully claimed will be leased to the Director of National Parks and Wildlife by the relevant Aboriginal Land Trust . . . The Government also recognises the importance of fully assessing the mineral resources of the proposed conservation zone, which is a largely unexplored area- as, of course, is all of Kakadu- and highly prospective, particularly for gold and platinum. That is something we now know because companies were not inhibited, and prohibited, from exploring, in the way they are now in stages 1 and 2. Who knows what might be in stages 1 and 2? The general opinion of those in authority, with authority and with expertise and skill suggests that stages 1 and 2 are major uranium, gold and base metal provinces by world standards. Accordingly, so we are again told, a five-year exploration and resource assessment program is planned for the zone. Here is the caveat. The speech states: Following the assessment, the Government will be in a better position to take further decisions on its long term future. I ask honourable senators: What company being responsible to its shareholders would spend millions and millions of dollars, as is required, exploring areas on the basis that the Government might grant it title, but then again, it might not? What company being honest unto its shareholders could possibly contemplate those risks? I have to say that the risks are pretty short. We have only to look at the history in the case of Geopeko, which was granted mining tenements and exploration permits in stage 2 which are now being taken away. Now we have legislation before us which says the companies shall have no compensation. And this Government says it is seeking to encourage private enterprise, exploration and exploitation! With that track record could honourable senators imagine any responsible company wanting to invest money in that area? Senator Kilgariff —Democracy! Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, democracy! The Australian Labor Party's definition of democracy is government by divine rule. The speech states: The regulation-making power in the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to prohibit operations on existing interests will only be used as a last resort, if the company does not accept additional terms and conditions which may be required as a result of an environmental assessment. When the Government talks about last resort it really means first resort. There is no right of appeal. Unilateral decisions are imposed upon mining companies. In a benevolent fashion we are further told: The Government recognises that the proposed treatment of existing interests in the conservation zone may alter the rights of companies with such interests. However I give an assurance, on behalf of the Government, that this is not to be taken as a precedent for the treatment of existing mining rights on Commonwealth land generally. It is the old story of suspending the Constitution or suspending the laws just for today. We are told that the rights, responsibilities and obligations can be varied, can be changed and may be altered; the rights of the companies and the interests therein may be changed, but it is not to be taken as the norm. How often does this have to be done before it becomes the norm? We are told: Any mining at Coronation Hill will proceed only under strict arrangements for the protection of environmental and Aboriginal heritage values. I find that quaint. Senator Zakharov and I are members of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources. It took evidence from the Aboriginal Sacred Sights Protection Authority that there is a major sacred site, an area of major significance, on the top of Coronation Hill, a bula, one of the most sacred areas to Aboriginals. Now that we have had a closer look at the matter and taken more detailed and better evidence we learn that the sacred site is not there but at Sleisbeck 50 kilometres away. The Aboriginals who are purported to have signed the claim in the first place have no memory or knowledge of the original claim. `Senator Crichton-Browne, we do not know what you are talking about. What do you mean we made an application?' Given that they are illiterate, all they did was sign a piece of paper put under their noses by the sacred sites authority. The sacred sites authority came to the conclusion that Coronation Hill looked like a pretty good prospect for gold, platinum and other base metals. Now the truth is out I hope that discipline is imposed. The sacred site is 50 kilometres away in an area so far found to be barren of minerals, metals, uranium and other base resources. Senator Zakharov —That is an appalling allegation and an appalling implication. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It is not an allegation; it stands up in evidence. The people whose names are on the application are now saying that Coronation Hill is not a site of significance to them, yet a sacred site is registered as being on Coronation Hill. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator LEWIS —I am sure the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce is well aware that, since the introduction of the Australian car plan, the Australian dollar has fallen about 40 per cent against the trade weighted index-it may be up a little in recent days-and even more against the yen, giving Australian car manufacturers much higher levels of protection than originally envisaged, an opportunity to obtain a greater share of the Australian car market and the potential to export both cars and components. Can the Minister tell the Senate what effect this increased protection will have on the Government's Australian car plan? In view of the substantial increase in the cost of cars, whereby local manufacturers seem to have increased their prices to match the prices of imported vehicles, will the Minister give consideration to indexing car import tariffs against the value of the Australian dollar as a means of keeping pressure on local producers to build better and cheaper cars and components? Senator BUTTON —Senator Lewis is about the only surviving shadow Minister. He is an extraordinary chap because he told me that he was going to ask me this question. I must say that it is almost a dorothy dixer and I said that I would not answer it if he asked it. I am not going to change in substance the view that I expressed to him yesterday. But let me say first of all that the car plan is, of course, a structural adjustment plan for the motor vehicle industry in Australia. The elements of that structural adjustment are to reduce the number of model lines produced in Australia in order that greater volumes can be obtained and to reduce the number of firms operating as independent entities as manufacturers and get them into joint venture activities-again for the same sort of purpose. Many of those structural issues are being discussed at present in the industry and it would not be appropriate for me to make any particular comments about the effects of the devaluation on the car industry, which, of course, have been very mixed. There is no simple conclusion about the benefits or detriments that flow to particular firms from the effects of the currency devaluation. Nonetheless, I concede the central point of the honourable senator's question, which is simply that the devaluation is responsible largely for the increase in car prices, which is a different view from that which the honourable senator's party was arguing a month or two ago when all the blame was put on the fringe benefits tax. Senator Messner —It still is. Senator BUTTON —The shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Messner, says that it still is blamed on the fringe benefits tax. Well, I know there are splits in the Liberal Party of Australia and I know that Senator Messner is supposed to be the shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, but Senator Lewis has a more intelligent appreciation of the issues than has Senator Messner. The basic cause of the increase in the price of cars is the devaluation of the dollar, particularly as against the yen. Having said that, I do not accede entirely to the suggestion made by Senator Lewis that local manufacturers have followed up the price of imported cars as a result of the devaluation and that that is a substantial factor in increased car prices. I think some manufacturers did do that in 1986 to some extent. As a result of that, we arranged for the Automotive Industry Authority to get in touch with each of the manufacturers and explain to them that we would be closely monitoring any price increases with a view to ensuring that that practice no longer happened. The protection regime extended to the industry is always capable of re-examination by any government, but it is not on the present agenda of the current Government. Senator ELSTOB —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. According to a survey by the Australian Trade Commission, as reported in the Australian Financial Review of 16 March, the great majority of potential Australian exporters admit to insufficient marketing and financial expertise to sell abroad, and less than one-fifth have bothered to apply for export market development grants. Will the Minister outline the initiatives taken by the Government to get Australian products on to world markets? What further action may be necessary to ensure that potential exporters seek out and obtain the necessary expertise? Senator BUTTON —I will have a go at outlining the initiatives taken by the Government in respect of export markets for Australian products, but let me say that my view is that there is a limitation on the role of government in these matters. The problem results from many years-in fact, decades-of encouragement of manufacturing industry in this country under high protective barriers, manufacturing for the domestic market only, and a lack of experience and general expertise, particularly in marketing. If I may be anecdotal for a moment, I discussed this matter in January this year with some of our Japanese ministerial visitors who made the point, I do not think in any derogatory sense, that Australians are not good marketers in international terms. I am sure I am being generous in interpreting what was said in that way. The Government has taken a range of initiatives to try to increase Australia's exports of manufactures and services. The Australian Trade Commission, Austrade, established in January 1986, has integrated a broad range of trade and trade support functions into one entity, as distinct from the numerous entities that existed before. Assistance for export industries in the financial year 1986-87 is estimated at $243.4m, which includes $92m for the export market development grants scheme. There are also special schemes in relation to particular countries. There is a high technology exporters scheme, and a new exporters scheme has been set up to assist general exports as well. Last year $2m was allocated to a national export drive aimed at improving export investment, production and marketing. Austrade is also developing some specifically directed assistance for the promotion of particular products into selected markets. Those plans, which I referred to a minute ago, include the China plan and the Japan marketing strategy. There is also a Cabinet sub-committee which reviews issues of domestic policy related to trade competitiveness. It has examined a number of issues relative to our competitiveness in international markets. These market strategies involved in some ways a targeted approach, but nonetheless the point of Senator Elstob's question remains: The majority of exporters or potential exporters are inexperienced at marketing their products overseas. That is a legacy from the past from which this country suffers, and I think it is very much related to managerial expertise. A whole generation of new managers is developing in this country, particularly in small and high technology companies. Right from the beginning those people have seen the world, as distinct from the domestic market, as their market-place. Those companies will grow and have much greater opportunities and much better capacity to take advantage of opportunities in export markets into the future. None of these things, which as I said are the result of decades of neglect, can be changed overnight. However, I think that the signs are encouraging that change is taking place. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer the Minister to his answer yesterday to Senator McKiernan's question about the excise applying on fuel products. In his answer, the Minister said: At the outset I point out the fact that all distillate used on farms-which comprises the great majority of fuel used by farmers-is excise free already. For the first time ever in 1985 this Government entirely reduced excise on fuel. . . . It entirely removed excise for distillate used on farms. When Mr Howard was Treasurer there was an excise levy on distillate used on farms of something over 2c a litre. Is it not a fact that, for the entire period that Mr Howard was Treasurer, primary producers were fully compensated either through a rebate or by an exemption certificate for the excise applying to fuel products used on farms and that, for a couple of years after the first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government, the rebate available to primary producers was at least 2c per litre less than the fuel products excise, and that hence primary producers were not fully compensated for the fuel products excise? Why did the Minister mislead the Senate yesterday? Senator WALSH —I need to make one small correction to what I said yesterday. Throughout the entire period that John Howard was Treasurer, there was not an excise on distillate used on farms. However, John Howard, in his last Budget, imposed the excise as part of the bicentennial roads development program. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister deny that the changes to excise arrangements made in the Hawke Budget in 1983 opened a gap between the rebate and the amount of excise that was payable? It was not until 1985 that the Hawke Government removed that penalty which had been borne by farmers over that period. Senator WALSH —The Fraser-Howard bicentennial roads development program imposed on distillate, petrol and a couple of other products a 2c levy from which there was no exemption. Senator JONES —I direct my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I refer to the current dispute between the Australian Medical Association and the Department over contract pay rates for visiting medical officers to repatriation institutions around Australia. Visiting medical officers, including specialists, have threatened to strike and withdraw from the repatriation system if their claims for pay rises of up to $94 an hour are not met. It should be noted that that hourly rate is nearly the amount that a single pensioner receives from the Department-namely, $106-to last for a whole week. Does the Minister have any further information on the dispute? Is there any likelihood of the repatriation hospital system closing because of the doctors' actions throughout Australia? Senator GIETZELT —Due to economic circumstances, every section of the Australian community has been called upon to make certain sacrifices in respect of salaries, wages and other forms of income; and that applies especially to wage and salary earners. Pensioners have also been required to make some small sacrifices. What is happening with the repatriation hospitals, as well as State hospitals, is that an endeavour is being made by the Australian Medical Association to impose upon governments, both Commonwealth and State, an increase in fees that is out of all proportion to the principles of restraint that most persons in authority in Australia agree should be imposed. The AMA has spoken to me-the last occasion was during Christmas week-and I said that the Government was prepared to match rates that the States were prepared to pay to visiting medical officers in the repatriation hospitals in line with what was offered to doctors in the State hospital system. It is a matter of some regret, therefore, that some of the doctors in some of the States are taking a stand, in association with the AMA, and refusing to provide services unless the Government takes on board the Macken rates that were set about 18 months ago in New South Wales. As a result of that, there is no doubt that the repatriation hospital system will be placed under great stress. However, it will not be closed, due mainly to the many dedicated salaried officers who are not party to the current dispute. This morning I received a copy of a statement from a very well known Queensland person-the President of the Queensland branch of the Returned Services League as well as the National President of the Local Government Association-Sir Albert Abbott, in which he condemned the doctors for their threat to withdraw services in the Queensland repatriation hospital system. The doctors say that their action is in support of a national rate. Of course, if the Commonwealth were to agree to a national rate, that would constitute in some comparative States an increase in excess of 140 per cent of the existing rates. In current circumstances, I would find very little community support for such a proposition. Of course, there is a recognition that the RSL is, together with the Government, endeavouring to suggest to the doctors that there is no justification for the demands for an enormous increase in sessional fees that have been put forward by the AMA and some of the doctors in the State system. The Senate will be aware that, in adopting the report of the Brand Committee of Review of the Repatriation Hospital System, it was a question of an eventual integration of that system with the State system. I will not-and, indeed, the Government will not-move in a way that would create an embarrassment to the Queensland Government, which on Monday of this week offered the doctors in Queensland $69 per hour for working in the State hospital system. I have indicated to the doctors and to the AMA that, whatever the States offer for sessional fees, the Commonwealth is prepared to accept. I think that that is a fair proposition. If the Queensland Government can offer only $69 per hour for sessional fees in its hospitals, that is what the Commonwealth is prepared to accept. That, of course, applies to the other States as well. The AMA is taking an intransigent position. We are endeavouring to negotiate with it, but it is taking the difficult position to which my colleague Senator Walsh has referred on numerous occasions in relation to the doctors in the Australian Capital Territory. If doctors stand intransigent and dogmatic, that will seriously affect patient care in all of our repatriation hospitals. Senator VIGOR —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Has the Minister demanded a full explanation from Australia Post of why nothing was done for five years to enforce physical security arrangements at premises used to print stamps and why Australia Post failed to inform the Minister of those deficiencies when contracts were renewed last year? Has the Minister called upon Australia Post to account for the continued disinterest in control over stamps produced and destroyed, as set out in the latest Auditor-General's report? Will the Minister for Communications demand an end to Australia Post's wasteful stamp destruction procedures, which have resulted in several court cases in recent years, each involving the diversion of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stamps destined for destruction? Senator WALSH —I have some information on this matter. It appears that, in anticipation of Australia retaining the America's Cup, Australia Post had printed some 35 million stamps, which were a reprint of an earlier issue. Something was included on the face of the stamps that presumed that Australia would retain the cup in February 1987. As history did not work out that way it would have been absurd to issue the stamps. Subsequent events made it inappropriate, to say the least, to issue the stamps; so Australia Post decided to destroy them. I do not have information about the second part of Senator Vigor's question. I will try to get it. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the President's Gallery of a former distinguished President of the Senate and senator for South Australia, Sir Harold Young. On behalf of all honourable senators, I wish Sir Harold well on his visit to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator WEST —I refer the Minister for Education to the release by the Business Council of Australia on 27 April 1987 of its education and training policy. Does the Minister agree that this policy recognises the importance of human resources to our economic performance? Is it true that the policy blames deficiencies in our work force for a significant constraint on economic growth? Can the Minister outline to the Senate whether the Government is in agreement with the thrust of this policy? Senator RYAN —I have seen the BCA's recently published education policy. I place on record my congratulations to the Business Council of Australia for producing this document. For some time now the Business Council has involved itself in education policy in relation to the Commonwealth Department of Education and other Commonwealth agencies and accepted our invitation to produce an education policy. I agree with the major themes of the BCA's policy, particularly with the emphasis it puts on the need to prepare young people better for the work force and to have a higher level of general education and skills in the work force. In that the BCA and the Government are at one. The Business Council has already endorsed our target of having 65 per cent of young people completing secondary education by the 1990s and has, as I said, participated in initiatives such as our industry liaison group. It is certainly the case that schools need to change if they are to produce young people who will be more effective in the work force and contribute better to Australia's economic growth. This is the view of all people seriously concerned with improving education. I hope to have further discussions with the Business Council and hope to see further participation by it in matters concerning education policy. As I said, the Business Council is to be congratulated for becoming so active in the field of education policy. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of the new code of practice on manual handling issued by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission which, if implemented, would require two men to operate a chainsaw, four ambulance officers to carry a stretcher and two farmhands to lift a bale of hay? Is he also aware that, under the ludicrous nature of the draft code, a bag of cement, a 20-litre paint drum, an empty beer keg, a bag of fertiliser, a tradesman's tool box, a crate of fish and a bag of explosives cannot be lifted unaided? Does he realise that, if implemented, the code would increase unemployment by imposing intolerable cost burdens on Australian industry? Is it possible for the Government to take the necessary action which would ensure that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission changes the proposals so that the code will not be declared practice because, as I understand it, the Commission can declare this code of practice and bring it into effect by regulation and not by legislation? Senator WALSH —I am aware of the proposed code of practice referred to. It has been circulated as a discussion paper. In my view it is about as absurd as the Bradfield scheme which Senator Bjelke-Petersen's husband, I noted in today's Bulletin, is supporting. The Department of Finance, without prior consultation with me, has written and sent to the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission a critique of the scheme, which I have read. I endorse the critique with this one reservation: It understates the case. I will be writing to my colleague Mr Willis to let him know my view on this matter. Senator COATES —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the activities of the special social security review teams and also to some of the reporting of this matter, especially in the Hobart Mercury of Monday this week, where an article appeared headed: `Dole blitz: one in four claimants is a cheat'. Will the Minister advise the Senate of the results of the relevant Budget decisions on this matter and, in particular, make it clear that such headlines are false and misleading and that the review teams have been dealing with quite carefully targeted groups of beneficiaries? Senator TATE —I have seen various articles on this matter, including the article in the Monday edition of the Hobart Mercury which was headed: `Dole blitz: one in four claimants is a cheat'. That heading completely misrepresents the findings of the review teams which have been sent out to various targeted areas and groups where recipients of unemployment benefit have been assessed. I will explain how the basic misrepresentation of this heading can be assessed by reference to the results of those reviews. It is also fair to put the activities of the review teams in context. This is one of a number of measures which have been taken by the social security administration, including, for example, compulsory continuous registration with the Commonwealth Employment Service, personal lodgment of unemployment benefit forms, entitlement checks, interviews for supporting parents and interviews for long term jobless. The impact of all these measures was sought, when the Budget was written, to be able to bring about a lowering of the average number of people on unemployment benefit by about 10,000. We now expect the average number of people on unemployment benefit to fall by about 25,000 in 1986-87, amounting to a full year's saving of $100m. As I say, that is a result of the various measures which have been undertaken. Of those measures the activity by the review teams, as suggested by Senator Coates in his question, is such that the results of the reviews cannot be extrapolated to the entire population of unemployment beneficiaries. The review teams undertake a process which is selective and which concentrates on targeting not only high risk areas in a geographical sense but certain individuals in those areas. Out of approximately 583,000 Australians on unemployment benefit, the teams have targeted 7,354 people, 1,821 of whom have had their benefit cancelled, 179 of whom have had their benefit reduced and 363 of whom have had their benefit increased. It is clear that the results of the activities of the teams are nevertheless satisfactory insofar as they have revealed in the targeted areas and populations of unemployment beneficiaries some need to cancel benefits. For that reason the number of teams will increase from five to 15. Of course, the best thing one can do to reduce the number on unemployment benefit is to increase the number of jobs which are available to help individuals, families and households to sustain themselves without assistance from the taxpayer. In that respect the policies of the Labor Government since it came into office have achieved spectacular success-a growth in total jobs of 759,000. That success rate, in creating jobs for Australians, is, as I say, the best way in which we can tackle the problem of unemployment in this country. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I remind the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Acting Attorney-General that some five weeks ago I asked a question of him concerning the former British intelligence operative Peter Wright and the possible implications for Australian intelligence and security. The Minister undertook to get an answer. That answer has not emerged in the subsequent five weeks. As the questions lend themselves readily to factual answers, will the Minister ensure that a detailed reply is available in the immediate days ahead? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am duly chastised. I will do my best. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an article in today's Australian newspaper regarding a strategy being drawn up by the Confederation of Australian Industry to mount a test case in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to exclude small businesses from award provisions, such as annual leave loadings and certain penalty rates? Will the Minister tell the Senate whether the Minister he represents, or any officer in his Department, has had discussions with the CAI about this proposal? Does the Government support the CAI proposal? Senator WALSH —I certainly have not had any discussions and nor, as far as I am aware, has Mr Willis or indeed anyone from his Department. But it is not surprising that the CAI is pursuing this line because it put submissions to the national wage case early in 1985 which were designed to reduce penalty rates. It also submitted to the national wage case in 1986 that there ought to be an inquiry into the level of penalty rates. As for the small business exemptions, or special treatment for small business, if these were accepted it would introduce a number of anomalies and economic distortions. If arbitrary distinctions were made between employers simply on the basis of the size of the firm it would obviously give a cost advantage, which could be hard to justify over one type of business or another, or could promote the fragmentation of businesses into artificially defined smaller units. It could be a disincentive to increasing employment and expanding business above any arbitrary threshold. It would be unrelated to capacity to pay, and it runs counter to the general CAI wages policy, although a footnote to that could be that some concessions are already provided under State taxation laws and, in the case of the Australian Capital Territory, under Commonwealth tax law as well from payroll tax for small business. On the question of whether the Government will be supporting the application, I do not have any definitive opinion or response from Mr Willis. From those facts and the information that I have given, I think the answer would have to be no. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. To what extent does Australia share defence and other intelligence with Fiji? Will the sharing of such intelligence be reviewed following the stated aim of the newly-elected Government of Fiji to pursue a non-aligned stance and a ban on the entry of nuclear powered warships to Fijian ports? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sure that even Senator Watson would appreciate that questions about intelligence and intelligence relationships are always responded to by governments of any colour with a `no confirm or deny'. Nothing whatsoever should be implied from that. I am simply unable to comment and I am sure that that would be the response of the Minister were I to refer that question to him. Senator COOK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the transcript of an interview of the National President of the Young Liberals, Mr Kim Jacobs, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program on Monday morning, suggesting that, in line with the Queensland Premier's submission to the 1985 National Taxation Summit, the Queensland Government should cut its spending by 7.5 per cent-the same proportion as the Queensland Premier had proposed that Commonwealth spending be cut-and hand the proceeds back to the Commonwealth? Did the Queensland Premier, in his submission to the Tax Summit, prescribe a 7.5 per cent across the board reduction in Commonwealth spending? Does the Commonwealth anticipate that Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen will make an offer at the forthcoming Premiers Conference of the type suggested by Mr Jacobs? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, I certainly do not anticipate that Premier Petersen will make any such offer to the Commonwealth at the forthcoming Premiers Conference. Indeed, I would be surprised, if funding to Queensland were cut by that amount or by anything approaching that amount, if he would not, on the contrary, very noisily, albeit probably somewhat incoherently, object to it. It is correct that the Premier, in his submission to the Tax Summit, put the proposition that Commonwealth spending should be reduced by 7 1/2 per cent. If I recall correctly the figure for total payments to the States, if total Commonwealth grants to the States in general were cut by 7 1/2 per cent, that would involve a cut of about $300m to the State of Queensland. Whatever cuts are finally made in funds to the States and announced at the Premiers Conference, I trust that the Premier will accept anything up to $300m off Queensland's pencilled-in funding without any complaint. The Premier's well-known support in the abstract for expenditure cuts by the Commonwealth is hard to reconcile with his attitude on specifics. This was demonstrated yet again by a story in today's Bulletin, which quotes Premier Petersen as supporting the construction of the Bradfield scheme, which is often misdescribed as another Snowy River scheme. It has the important exception, however, that whereas under the Snowy River scheme the water goes downhill about 1,000 feet of altitude and generates electricity, with the Bradfield scheme the water has to be pumped uphill about 1,000 feet of altitude, thereby consuming electricity. However, I guess that if somebody can believe that we can have a fusion reactor in the boot of a motor car, a small problem such as the inversion of altitude should not worry him at all. It would be interesting to know what the Premier's latest or newest economic adviser, the former Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Stone, thinks about the Bradfield scheme, I would be most interested to see his economic analysis of the proposal. Finally, I can understand Mr Jacobs's frustration and the Liberal Party's frustration in general with the antics of the Queensland Premier. They have many points of difference. However, they do have one thing in common, if a report in the Sydney Sun of 18 January of this year is correct-I table the report-and that is that they are experts at rigging elections. Senator NEWMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I remind the Minister that the Government treated the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Bill as an urgent Bill, and to that end kept the Senate sitting for an extra day nearly four weeks ago, on 3 April. Can the Minister tell the Senate why such an urgent Bill did not receive assent until 16 April? When will this so-called urgent legislation be proclaimed? Have the members of the Commission yet been selected? If so, who are they and when will they be announced? When will they commence sitting, and what funds have been provided for the inquiry? Senator RYAN —An announcement will be made in due course. As to the specific part of Senator Newman's question, I will have to seek that information from the Minister. Senator NEWMAN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. As definitions are often pretty important in this place, will the Minister give us her definition of `in due course'? Senator RYAN —When the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has made his decisions. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister is no doubt aware that the South Australian and Federal governments have been discussing building a bullet style train link from Adelaide to Melbourne. It has been reported that such a train would travel between the two cities in four hours and at speeds of up to 270 kilometres per hour. Will the Minister state the expected cost and the feasibility of such a project? Senator GIETZELT —I am aware of the Press reports in a Melbourne newspaper which refer to a bullet train service between Melbourne and Adelaide. The Government would naturally be supportive of that proposal. The fast train concept was recently discussed in a wide ranging discussion of issues between Mr Bannon and the Minister, but of course there are many problems to be ironed out in respect of the proposal before the matter can be proceeded with. The main substance of the discussion in the initial stages was the standardisation of the rail link between Melbourne and Adelaide. When that point has been agreed upon by the Commonwealth and the State, the fast train service obviously will have to adopt that proposal. That naturally and normally would raise the question of the costs involved in standardising the rail link. Adelaide and Melbourne, I am advised, are the only mainland capital cities on the rail network not connected to each other by a standard gauge, which means that it becomes a priority to accept any suggestions of improving the quality of the service between the two capital cities. Australian National, I am advised, has undertaken a preliminary evaluation of the project. However, I have to tell Senator Foreman that it has been unable to reach agreement on such matters as capital costs, potential markets and new traffic. In the current economic circumstances, no matter how good the project is it requires a large capital outlay. Senator REID —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of comments made by Mr Willis at a Press conference in Perth recently, reported in one newspaper under the heading `Government Supports Employers in Building Row'? Is he further aware that the Cain Government's Minister for Industrial Affairs not only agrees with the claim for the $52 a week pay increase by the building unions, but also condones pressure being placed on subcontractors? Is Mr Crabb doing so with the concurrence of the Federal Minister? If the Government seriously intends to support the building and construction industry, when will it take action against union tactics such as the stop work action which took place in Canberra yesterday involving 5,000 members of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia? When can employers expect some genuine action by the Government to ensure that the Australian building and construction industry will continue to be viable and able to offer employment? Senator WALSH —The Government is concerned about this report, and the Treasurer in a speech delivered last Sunday evening made a reference to it. I am not purporting to quote from the speech as I do not have a copy of it, but in the second or third last paragraph of it he said that the Government would be opposing that alleged collaboration on the presumption, of course, that the alleged collaboration was in fact taking place. To the best of my knowledge, Mr Willis still has not been able to clarify the facts. If he has anything to add to it I will pass that on. Of course it is well known, and I have stated this on many occasions in the Senate, that the Government is opposed to wage increases of that magnitude. It believes first that the economy cannot afford them, particularly if there were any flow-on and, second, that there is no justification for wage increases of that size going to particular groups when there is a general acceptance of wage restraint. That has been made clear by a number of Ministers on a number of occasions. The Government is even more opposed to attempts by the greedy, militant doctors union of the Australian Capital Territory to get its reduced claim of a $350 a week pay increase for a part time job. The Government is strongly opposed to the claims by the BWIU and the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia, and perhaps one or two others. It is much more strongly opposed to the attempt by the militant, greedy doctors union-because of the magnitude of the claim-to get a $350 a week pay increase for a part time job, an increase which they are trying to extort from the Australian Capital Territory health system by the imposition of work bans, by industrial action. I just wish that the same evenhandedness were displayed by the Opposition and that the Opposition were as free in criticising the much more outrageous claims of the greedy, militant Australian Capital Territory doctors union and much more forthcoming in opposing that militant union's claims than it is in opposing the claims of other unions. Senator COLEMAN —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the report in the `Overflow' column of the Times on Sunday dated 12 April 1987 linking the International Freedom Foundation through Pearson and Pipkin Inc. with the South African Government? I remind the Minister that it was this same IFF which sponsored a series of disgusting, misleading and very expensive full-page advertisements in a major Australian newspaper directed against the African National Congress during the recent visit of Oliver Tambo. Does the Minister have any information as to whether the purported linkage between the IFF and the South African Government is a reality? If so, will the Australian Government rethink any permission which may have already been given as to the opening of an office in Australia by the International Freedom Foundation? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, I have seen the report, and if it is true it reinforces my own disgust at the hamfisted propaganda campaign that was waged by the South African Government and its stooges, some of whom are now scattered across three conservative parties opposite, at the time of the Tambo visit to Australia. As to whether the report is in fact true about the particular connections of this front organisation, the Government is seeking, through our representatives overseas, to obtain more background on the International Freedom Foundation, so-called, and whatever associations it may have. I will certainly ensure that Senator Coleman is kept informed of the results of these investigations. Finally, the question of permission for the opening of an office for this organisation does not arise in the foreign affairs context unless a foreign national were to seek entry to Australia for that purpose. In that event, and depending upon the outcome of our investigations in the meantime, the Government would, of course, wish to satisfy itself that a person operating any such office was not operating under false pretences or in any manner contrary to Australian law. Senator MESSNER —I address my question to the Minister for Finance. I refer to his answer to Senator Chaney's question asked earlier. Did the Minister say that the former Government imposed an excise on distillate used on farms? Did he fail to mention that there was a concurrent equal rebate given by the former Government, thus offsetting the effect of the excise and adding no cost in net terms to the farmer? As this is clearly wrong, will the Minister check his answer to the question? Why did the Minister mislead the Senate? Will he acknowledge that the only extra unrebated charge for diesel fuel excise was imposed by the Hawke Labor Government when excises were indexed in the Labor Budget in August 1983? Senator WALSH —As I thought I might get a question such as this, I have some information with me. The 1982 Budget Papers, page 243, I think, of Paper No. 1-I am not certain of that-states that the exemption from excise duty of diesel fuel for all off-road use will be abolished. It does, it is true-Senator Messner is right-go on to state that a rebate will be paid to some users but the exemption from excise itself was abolished. There was a simultaneous announcement of the establishment of the Australian bicentennial road development program which imposed an additional excise of 1c a litre which was to increase to 2c a litre on 1 July 1983. I will check the rest of this, but my recollection of it is that Mr Howard did not complete the action which was required for the rebate of that additional Australian bicentennial road development excise. That situation was allowed to continue by the Government. I will check that out. Senator McINTOSH —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security to recent media reports that the Government is considering discounting indexation rises for age and other pensions as well as unemployment benefit. Would the Minister concede that most recipients of such benefits are those in the community with the least ability to absorb such cuts? Can the Government assure pensioners and others that there will be no further deferments of indexation such as were announced in the 1986 Budget? Can the Government also assure pensioners that there will be no discounting of indexation increases and that the Government will in fact continue to advance towards the goal of pensions reaching 25 per cent of average weekly earnings? Senator TATE —I am unable to assist Senator McIntosh in assessing the speculative reports in the media to which he has adverted and which have expressed some misgivings about what the Government might be considering as to age and other pensions as well as unemployment benefit. I concede, almost as a matter of definition, that recipients of benefits are less well placed to absorb cuts than others in the community who are in receipt of income from employment or accumulated wealth. I think that that stands to reason. Nevertheless, I cannot give the assurances sought in anticipation of the statement to be made on 13 May except to say that the general principle of a fair sharing of burdens will, I am confident, be observed. I will refer the question to the Minister for Social Security and inform Senator McIntosh should he have anything further to add. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Have 4,500 public hospital beds been closed in Australia including more than 2,000 in the fully utilised Sydney teaching hospitals, where there can be no suggestion of lack of demand, since Medicare was introduced by the Government? Has this been a major factor in the trebling of the queues for hospital beds that has resulted in more than 100,000 patients waiting for upwards of two years for hospital beds and many dying in the process? What does the Government intend to do to correct this disaster in health delivery which has followed the introduction of Medicare and which particularly affects poorer sections of the community which cannot afford alternative private care? Senator TATE —I am unable to answer as to the exact number of beds as contained in Senator Baume's question. I will refer that part of his question directly to the Minister for Health for some authentication. Regarding the question of waiting lists in private hospitals, it is well known that the Opposition has as its solution a plan to destroy the public system and to force the public into the private hospital system. The Opposition has made the quite outrageous claim that such changes will force an increase in the occupancy rate of private hospitals, thereby solving the waiting time problems. If they would only consider their own experience, they would know that under the most draconian of the Fraser Government's various health schemes, where very heavy-handed financial tactics were used to try to force people to use private hospitals, occupancy rates in private hospitals remained at only about 60 per cent. So the Opposition's solution to the problem does not carry any conviction whatsoever. I recall that on the day previous to a meeting I attended in Perth which involved the law enforcement approach to drug strategy, there was a joint meeting of all Australian Health Ministers. I am sure that the Health Ministers agreed unanimously that the States and Territories have primary responsibility for the administration and delivery of public hospital services. They also agreed that the following factors affected waiting times: Nurse shortages, resulting in bed closures; supply of some specialist medical services, such as orthopaedic surgeons; advances in technology, allowing a greater variety of procedures, such as coronary bypass surgery, lens implants for eyes, hip and other joint replacements, to be more readily performed; and greater public awareness of new improved technology leading to greater demand. As I recall, at that meeting-as I have said, I was in the vicinity-it was agreed that it was up to the States and the Territories to develop programs to overcome waiting list problems. Certainly the Government will be assisting the States in that regard. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has allegedly changed its policy on the treatment of income and bonuses for friendly societies when assessing pensions under the income and assets test. Can the Minister confirm that changes have taken place? Can he say whether veterans and their dependants are to be seriously and adversely affected by the changes? Senator GIETZELT —The question of assessment of income is a matter that runs parallel with the procedures adopted by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There has been no change to the rules, despite some assertions by friendly societies that the rules have been tightened up. The Department has changed the way it assesses some friendly society investments, not because of any real change but because of misleading information previously provided by some friendly societies. The friendly societies have presented the Department of Veterans' Affairs with a picture of their investments that does not match the facts. As a consequence, there is some confusion. An attempt is being made by some friendly societies to suggest that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is pursuing different policies from those pursued by the Department of Social Security. They like to say that pensioners' funds are tied up for a fixed period and that the income earned is not available until the investment matures. Of course, that is an attempt to get around the assets test legislation which recognises that payments should be based on need. I understand that that concept has general com- munity support. Investors are told that when the investment matures they can withdraw their money whenever they like. Of course, if they avail themselves of that, the money is regarded as income. It is now clear that friendly society investments are no different from an interest bearing bank account or a whole range of other investments that are commonly available. There is evidence of that in the way in which investment advisers operate in some of the daily newspapers in the various States of the Commonwealth. The law does not give friendly societies any special privilege under the income and assets test, and to do so would give them an unfair advantage over financial institutions. I stress that there has been no change and that the difficulties that have eventuated are as a result of an attempt by some societies to get around the legislation provided by the Parliament. Senator KNOWLES —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Today's West Australian newspaper states that 70 trainees will be employed in the Australian Public Service in Western Australia under the program of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The program, of course, was formerly known as Priority One: Young Australia. Incidentally, the Department says that the figure is only 49 and not 70. Can the Minister confirm this? Does he consider that such a placement will be successful, when the State Secretary of the Australian Public Service Association has claimed that, last year, a similar number of trainees were dismissed after a period of office work, had received no proper training and were `useless for anything outside the Public Service'? Senator WALSH —I saw the report in question only 30 seconds ago. I also have a note from Mr Willis relevant to it. The first point notes that trainees are not being used as cheap labour and that they are paid at award rates-that is, pro rata-for the time spent on the job. He has supplied a good deal of other information which I do not think is particularly relevant to the question. I was not, until 60 seconds ago, aware of the statement by the State Secretary of the APSA, but I would be surprised if the assertions made by the State Secretary of that organisation are correct. Senator ROBERTSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. The proponents of value added tax-type consumption taxes often argue that such a tax is less subject to evasion and avoidance than personal income tax and that the operation of such a tax allows a better policing of the personal income tax system. Has the Government considered the implications of that in framing its policy on tax avoidance and evasion, and are those claims firmly grounded? In particular, would the average small businessman in Australia, say, a delicatessen proprietor, be made better off by a shift in the Australian tax mix away from personal income tax towards VAT? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, there is a circumstance under which a small businessman, such as a delicatessen proprietor, could be better off under a VAT, and that circumstance is if the person in question is into tax evasion. Whether value added taxes are easier to police than personal income tax is a matter of some controversy but, in general, I think the degree to which taxes are effectively policed is a function of the resources which are devoted to policing them as well as of the innate ease or difficulty of administering or evading. In the case of a VAT, it depends, of course, on how tight or onerous the administrative requirements of a VAT are in regard to record keeping by businesses and on the number and powers of VAT inspectors. For example, a small shopkeeper could, under present tax arrangements, take food from the shelves of his shop for his own use without putting the purchases through the till and could claim the full cost of the wholesaler's bill as a deduction from his personal income via business expenses even though he used the purchases for personal use and was thereby evading personal income tax. If the record keeping requirements of a VAT were strict enough, so strict as to include the fact that that transaction had taken place within the proprietor's shop, and there were thousands of VAT inspectors running around, there is some chance that the personal income tax evaded in that way would be picked up by the VAT inspector. The VAT records would then enable a clamp down to take place on the personal income tax evaded. If the system was not so tightly policed, the shopkeeper who, say, was doing that would be able to evade more tax with a VAT than under personal tax because he would evade not only by way of the wholesaler's bill claimed as a deduction or a business expense, but also by way of the VAT which should have applied to the value added by the retail business. Honest, law abiding small shopkeepers, of course, would not be doing either and would not have to worry, but they would have to face the detailed costs of keeping the VAT records and the costs of complying with the inspections by VAT officers. Small business associations which support the VAT must be very keen on stamping out tax evasion if they want to employ thousands of VAT enforcers or inspectors just to catch up with a handful of businesses which are evading income tax at present in that way and would presumably evade a VAT as well unless it was very tightly policed. In closing, I think that those people who purport to speak for small business, such as Andrew Hay and Peter Boyle, either are not aware of the implications of what they say or are more interested in pursuing their personal political ambitions than in furthering the interests of the people whom they purport to represent. Senator WALSH —Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle asked me on 19 March a question regarding the acquisition of cattle properties for Aborigines in the Kimberley region of Western Australia by the Exim Corporation. I seek leave to incorporate some further information in Hansard. Leave granted. The additional information read as follows- In June 1985, the Commonwealth provided a $6 million grant to the Western Australian Government for the purpose of assisting in the purchase of `Emanuel' pastoral leases located in the Fitzroy River area of the Kimberleys. This purchase is part of that Government's plan to restructure the pastoral industry in that region and was undertaken by a subsidiary of the Western Australian Government's EXIM Corporation. The Commonwealth's grant was made conditional upon the Western Australian Government providing Aboriginal interests in the Fitzroy River area with viable pastoral units equivalent to 25 per cent of the `Emanuel' leases. The Western Australian Government has indicated that the pastoral leases acquired require development work before they can be distributed and that this has caused delay in the re-allocation. I have been informed that delays are also attributable to legal proceedings over the forfeiture of other leases which are seen as an integral part of the restructuring process. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth is actively pursuing finalisation of this matter with the Western Australian Government. Those aspects of the Senator's question which refer to the financial affairs of the EXIM Corporation are matters that should be addressed to the Western Australian Government. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Michael Baume proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The hardship imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.05) —Everyone knows, and the Government knows, that there is a crisis in health care delivery in Australia. The problem is that this Government is determined not to do anything about it to fix it. We heard at Question Time, when the Special Minister of State (Senator Tate), who represents the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in this chamber, was asked what this Government was going to do about the fact that there were now waiting lists of something like 100,000 for hospital beds in Australia, particularly after the closing of something like 4,500 public hospital beds throughout the nation, that the Government would do nothing about the 100,000 people on the waiting list because it was entirely the States' responsibility. There was no suggestion that the Commonwealth Government, which provides the funds and which taxes Australians for health services, was prepared to have any input even on how to resolve this personal disaster for so many thousands of Australians. We have seen continually in the media reports of the number of people who have been dying while waiting on hospital lists. We are aware, by news reports and television reports, of the personal disasters affecting people who have been waiting in pain for years to get admission to public hospitals. We are aware of the fact that the people who are suffering most are the poor because it is the poor who cannot afford to take the private sector health alternative which is available to the rich. Yet this very system which this Government introduced and which this Government is supporting is a system that has crowded out the poor from the public hospital system. It has, in fact, encouraged those people who may well otherwise have been able to afford, and who in the past were prepared to afford, private insurance to be given access under the Medicare scheme to the public hospital system. They are crowding out the poor, who have no alternative, with the result that there are now massive queues for the public hospital system and there is a degree of underutilisation in the private hospital system. It is interesting to note that when points such as that are made-and they have been made repeatedly by the Opposition-Dr Blewett comes up with most extraordinary and nonsensical responses. The Minister for Health quite falsely claims that the private hospital bed occupancy rates have increased under the present Government. I am assured by the industry that that is not so and that Dr Blewett was quite improperly taking some statistics from a time when there was a strike in the New South Wales public hospital area and for a short period there was an increase in private hospital utilisation. It is extraordinary that a Minister of this Government would take such clearly unrepresentative figures and pretend to this Parliament that there had been an increase in private hospital bed utilisation when the industry clearly shows there has been a slight reduction. The reality is that, as a result of this Government's policy, State governments around Australia have been closing down beds that are in strong demand. We have to ask: Why is this happening? Senator Coates —To take more money from them. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I hear the interjection `Because they need more money'. The amount of money being spent on health care in Australia has multiplied, has increased enormously, under this Government. The question is: Where is it going? Why have health standards declined so dramatically in Australia? There is no doubt that they have declined. There is no doubt that it is harder for people to get the medical treatment, and the hospital treatment in particular, to which they are entitled and which they could receive under the previous Government's health arrangements, which this Government set out to destroy. The policy of providing universality, of pushing everyone, in effect, into the Medicare system unless a person particularly chooses to have substantially increased costs loaded on to his family budget has generated unattainable demands on the medical system, on the hospital system, in Australia. There is no chance, while the present arrangements persist, of the public hospitals in Australia ever meeting those demands. The queues will persist so long as this Government, as it has reiterated today, is determined to resist any suggestion that it should encourage change, improvement-any kind of betterment-of the lot of those people who are waiting, and who are dying while waiting, for hospital care. Let us see what has happened to health care under this Government. It has nationalised a substantial proportion of the health industry by establishing a government monopoly in medical insurance and has forced, in effect, millions of people out of private hospital insurance. The Government has increased the annual tax take by something like $4.4 billion to pay for Medicare-Medicare which in fact has provided queues rather than effective results. The Government has increased by 3,000 the number of public servants required to administer Medicare. It has increased personal health costs by something like 35 per cent and it has forced 10 million health fund members to give up their private medical cover and join Medicare. It has pushed up the costs of private hospital insurance, so forcing 1.8 million people to give up their hospital cover. We are now paying something like $8.8m for Commonwealth health care, which is about twice as much as we paid three years ago, and the standard of service has declined. Just ask any of the people waiting in a queue what sort of health service they get while they wait in pain for admission to hospital. There has been something like a trebling in this queue as 100,000 people wait for treatment, yet we still have private hospital beds remaining empty. But of course this is because of the crowding out effect brought about by Medicare pushing people into the public hospital system. There is still something like four out of 10 private hospital beds not utilised. It is extraordinary that, when the Minister for Health was responding last November to some very accurate and pointed comments by Mr Porter in the other place, he stressed that very few of the problems-he did admit that there were problems-were due to Medicare. He said that there were more people in private hospitals today than there were when Medicare was introduced. What a totally disreputable reply. Of course there are, because there are more private hospital beds. There has been an increase of something like 1,000 beds in that area. Naturally more people are using these beds. Otherwise, presumably, the people who invested their money in providing those private hospital beds would not have spent that money in this way. The reality is that there is still a large volume of underutilised beds in the private system, whereas there is massive overutilisation, combined with the closure of beds, in the public system. There is clear evidence of total chaos in the way the Government apparently acknowledges that there is a problem. Dr Blewett says: `Yes, there are problems but very few of them have to do with Medicare'. He says that there is a problem but that the Government will not do anything to fix it. Here we have a situation where the community is clearly paying more for health cover, where patients are unable to gain access to a hospital bed when they need one and where health care providers are fed up with the level of industrial disputation, which is the highest ever. Strikes are now commonplace. I must say that I am not prepared to blame the nurses for the level of strikes in the hospital system because of what I believe this Government has forced on the hospital system by insisting, if you like, on what is now an almost 100 per cent heavy nursing requirement, particularly in the teaching hospitals, instead of a much more balanced and normal approach to nursing. Anyone who has had anything to do with those hospitals will know the impact that that has. It is not simply for money that the nurses have been having a degree of unrest and why morale has been totally destroyed in the hospitals. It is not simply for money, and that can be seen because, as I recall it, there has been something like a $100 a week increase in some nurses wages over recent times. Senator Sheil —When did they ever strike before? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I agree with the honourable senator. The reality is that there is now a lack of morale in the hospital system. That lack of morale has been brought about by this Government's policies, and the key policy is the Medicare policy. Senator Coates —Nonsense! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Is it all just a coincidence that all this happened after Medicare, that this crisis developed? What absolute nonsense. The thing is that the only beneficiaries of the Hawke Government's Medicare changes have been the 3,000 public servants who have been given jobs to bring them into being. Certainly, the taxpayers have not benefited. Certainly, the patients have not benefited and certainly the people who have waited and died have not benefited. The reality is that there has been a massive involvement of waste in the health system. We can see that the Government's encouragement of bulk billing has resulted in significant waste. Initially under Medicare the enrolled population was using an average of 5.8 services a year. Senator Coates —Wrong! Senator MICHAEL BAUME —These figures are correct. If the honourable senator seeks to alter them, he may. The figures are publicly available. To ensure that Senator Coates does not confuse himself, so that he can see for himself the reality of the closure of hospital beds, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the number of hospital beds in Australia. The table comes from the annual report of the Department of Health. Leave granted. The table read as follows- HOSPITALS Table 11: Hospitals and beds-Australia-30 June, 1982 to 1986 (Number) As at 30 June 1982(a) 1983(a) 1984(a) 1985 1986 Hospitals Recognised (public) hospitals (b)... 768 771 748 745 734 Private hospitals (c)... 341 341 338 335 333 Total... 1,109 1,112 1,086 1,080 1,067 Beds Recognised (public) hospitals (b)... 74,157 74,229 71,054 70,817 69,739 Private hospitals (c)... 19,980 20,132 20,600 20,724 21,049 Total... 94,137 94,364 91,654 91,541 90,788 Beds per '000 population... 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.7 (a) Some institutions funded under the hospital cost-sharing arrangements (e.g. nursing posts) were not recognised as hospitals between 1 September 1981 and 31 January 1984. (b) Based on data provided by State and Territory Health Authorities. (c) Private hospitals and numbers of beds must be approved under the Health Insurance Act. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Senate. Let us look at what has happened as a result of bulk billing. As I was saying, the enrolled population was using an average of 5.8 services a year initially under Medicare. Last year the average was 7.5 services a year. That is a 28 per cent increase in the volume of services in just two years. Is anyone on the Government side going to pretend that that 28 per cent increase in the volume of services under Medicare has brought any overall benefit in health terms to this nation-or has it involved a massive volume of overservicing in some areas resulting in distressing underservicing in others? Has it in fact encouraged a different sort of health service at the coal face, if you like, where there should be a close personal relationship between a doctor and his or her patient? I simply stress here that the Government has promoted bulk billing as the preferred method of payment for medical services. That is the reason for this immense blowout in the cost of providing services. This cost has increased by something like 42 per cent in the first three full years of the Medicare program. Bulk billing encourages overutilisation, as I was suggesting, and has given what is known as entrepreneurial medicine an open pipeline into the Government Treasury and into the pockets of Australian taxpayers. By the way, that does not mean that the ordinary general practitioners, the local doctors, the bulk of the profession, have misused their role-not at all. However, it concerns some specific people. Let us see what has happened under entrepreneurial medicine, which has been encouraged by Medicare. An atmosphere has been created in which it can flourish. The patient-doctor relationship has now been eroded. If we go to one of the entrepreneurial places and find the doctor on duty, we see that in some of the more aggres- sive clinics the patient has become a mere object on a production line where the goal is income maximisation instead of patient care. This Government's Medicare scheme has produced Edelstens, not health. That is the issue. It has created an environment in which we get this kind of entrepreneurial medicine, aimed more at making a business out of the medical profession rather than having a professional totally committed, as it has been through its history, to concern for the patient. Under Medicare the provision of public hospital service has been abysmal. As I have mentioned, the chaos in the public system is such that people have been dying while waiting to get in. The cost of public hospital queues in Australia is disastrous not only in terms of financial inconvenience-for example, people cannot get back to work-but also the enormous physical and emotional costs must be overwhelming. To my knowledge there has been no definitive study, no attempt by this Government to examine that problem at all, and yet surely if it is prepared to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on all sorts of extraordinary research grants in other directions it would be worth while finding out what damage this Government's Medicare system has done and what the consequences of it are for people who have been waiting in such queues. Many have lost their jobs and their dignity; their productive contribution to society has ceased and they end up becoming reliant on the State in so many instances. The reason for this situation is clear. When Medicare was originally introduced people were encouraged to give up their private health insurance, and Government sponsored public relations campaigns actively promoted this by promising people that they would have access to free hospital care in a public hospital. As a result, of course, 1.8 million people left the protection of private health insurance. The public hospital sector has simply not been able to deal with this massive increase in demand. When this point was made to Dr Blewett, he said that it was because of all these other exciting things that are happening, all this technical improvement and the technological change in medicine. He said that that was what had caused the problem. He cited some figures to show, for example, that general surgery in our country has increased by 77 per cent in five years. I have news for him. About half of that increase took place under the previous Government anyway. In fact, as I look roughly at those figures, under the present Government there has been no increase whatsoever in the rate of provision of those services. So this is special pleading of a disgraceful kind. Under the previous Government's medical system we did not have this kind of disaster but now, because of Medicare, we have this expanding, dynamic if you like, disaster which not only is not getting any better but also there is no indication that it will get better. Even more importantly, as we found out at Question Time today, there is no will on the part of this Government to seek an improvement. Let us look at what the Government should be doing, at least in this area of high technology which is apparently increasing the demand for medical services. This Government's own actions have severely hindered the improvement in the quality of services that can be provided. There was a recent article in the Centre for Independent Studies booklet about high-tech medicine, by John Logan. He points out quite clearly that high-tech medical services, which are those that use expensive newly developed machines, have created a concern in the Government that their overuse will cause an explosion in the Medicare budget. Of course the reality is that if government left the market to itself, even if a monopoly situation developed for a short time with some particular kind of equipment, consumers would still not have to pay monopoly prices for the service because the threat of competition would force prices to be held down. Of course Medicare, under its kind of funding, raises the demand for medical services because it reduces the costs for which patients pay at the point of service. So Medicare funding itself makes it ir- rational for sellers to reduce their prices, even if their costs go down. There is no point having a competitive environment under Medicare. This is simply a microcosm of the sorts of problems occurring. When governments try to limit the number of high-tech services provided by limiting the number of machines, for example through licensing, it causes queuing because the system simply cannot meet Medicare induced demand. So if government grants a monopoly licence the monopolists are free to charge a higher price. This is what has been happening under Medicare. This is an example of the way this Government has been attacking the pockets of the taxpayers of Australia, destroying the medical service available to families, destroying the hospital service that once was so readily available and imposing by its determination not to fix it up a hardship on the Australian family that is untenable. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(3.25) —Despite what people might think, having listened to Senator Michael Baume's contribution, the Senate is discussing a matter of public importance brought on by the Opposition. That matter is: The hardship imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies. I want to address the issues involved in that rather than the extraordinary contribution made by Senator Baume. What measure of hardship was given to us by Senator Baume? None. Senator Walters —I will tell you. Senator CROWLEY —I am sure Senator Walters will have a say on just about anything, but would she mind waiting her turn? What measure was there of the Hawke Government's failure? What measure did we get from Senator Baume of the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies but an extraordinary net as boringly predictable as one could ever imagine that went to, would you believe, waiting lists in public hospitals in the State system; a slather and whack about bulk billing and overservicing, with misrepresentation of the facts, which I will come to in a short time; some extraordinary figures that seemed to suggest that the closure of public hospital beds but the opening of private hospital beds was not a balance and that there was chaos, all due to Medicare; and then finally Senator Baume suggested that, with high technology and the supply of highly technological equipment, as a result of the control introduced by this Government under the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, we have problems of increasing costs, and that these costs would be reduced if these things were left to market forces and competition prevailed in this area. That is an extraordinary comment by Senator Baume, especially as he went on to say that competition would hold the costs down, and he implied that anyhow, because patients do not have to pay much with Medicare, without Medicare-when they would have to pay more-they would be better off. Senator Baume has been the shadow Minister for Health for only a week; it is quite clear that he needs to do some more homework. Either he wants patients to pay more, or he wants patients to pay less. His arguments and the case he presented on this matter of public importance were nothing but a series of artificial claims and wild confusions. His claims about the hardship imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies were a grab bag that went with great predictability to waiting lists, to bulk billing, to claims about overservicing, to the number of hospital beds, which he says is rising and falling like a yo-yo, and somehow strikes got in there. I notice there was some mention of nurses but absolutely no mention of the doctors' strike, their disgraceful performance in New South Wales. There was no analysis of the Australian Medical Association's report on its own profession, recently published and carried out by a Mr Cotton, a one time contributor of great significance to this country. His report and the AMA's acknowledgment of it goes to some difficulties within that profession. I think Senator Baume needs to be more comprehensive. If he is going to ask us to look at his contribution on the hardship imposed on Australian families, let us have some fact; let us not have a wild slather and rhetorical claims going to such things as people dying while on waiting lists. The first claim I would like to pick up is his claim that this Government intends to do nothing about those waiting lists. These problems have been clearly recognised by the Government and by the Minister on any number of occasions. The answer given by the Special Minister of State, Senator Tate, to the honourable senator's question preambling the matter of public importance I think covers not only what Minister Blewett would say and what this Government says but also what is agreed by all of Australia's Health Ministers-not some, but all. They all agree that there are a number of factors increasing waiting lists and waiting times around the public hospitals. They are nursing shortages that resulted in bed closures; the supply of some specialist medical services such as those provided by orthopaedic surgeons; advances in technology allowing a greater variety of procedures such as coronary bypass surgery, lens implants for eyes or hip and other joint replacements to be more readily performed; and a greater public awareness of new improved technology leading to greater demand. That is not an exhaustive list but every State Health Minister, as well as our Federal Health Minister, agrees that those matters have to be taken into account when we are looking at the increase in hospital waiting lists. The problem cannot be sheeted home in a simplistic fashion to Medicare in the way in which Senator Michael Baume tried to suggest. He went on, I think very disgracefully, to say that this Federal Government-even if it knew of the problems-intends to do nothing. I think that is most dishonourable because the Minister for Health has made it quite clear-- Senator Michael Baume —Didn't you hear the answer? Senator CROWLEY —Yes. The honourable senator might wait a minute. The Health Ministers of all States have agreed to develop programs with the Commonwealth to address the real issues. The programs will be developed on a bilateral basis recognising the specific needs and proposals of each State and Territory. It is envisaged that such proposals will include improved day surgery, domiciliary nursing for long stay patients and more effective use of acute hospital services. This was put out in a joint statement by the State Health Ministers and was also put out in a Press release by the Minister for Health only in the last week, I believe. In doing that he acknowledged the bilateral basis of the Commonwealth contribution that in some ways is a recognition by the Commonwealth that it can help, even though it is not required to, in addressing these difficulties that the State Health Ministers acknowledge in this area. It is most dishonourable of Senator Michael Baume to say that the Federal Government, having recognised the problem, intends not to address it. It has to this point; it has now come up with further proposals that will be worked out with Commonwealth-State agreement. The contribution of the Federal Minister and his generous assistance in taking steps to deal with the problem once having recognised it have to be acknowledged. We must also acknowledge the increased funding contribution by the Commonwealth for public hospitals. I draw to the attention of the Opposition that the Minister for Health is recorded in House of Representatives Hansard of 14 November 1986 as saying: The previous Government in its last year of office paid $1,261m to the State public hospitals systems. This year- that is, in 1986- we are paying $2,713m. In four years we have virtually doubled the payments to the public hospital systems. This in comparison with the previous government expenditure in this area. That is another thing this Federal Government has done to help the public hospital system. Also, for the first time, this Federal Government has paid into the public hospital system of the States $50m a year for the upgrading of equipment. The Opposition when in power did not make a single contribution related specifically to equipment. Senator Michael Baume cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse this Federal Government of doing nothing and ignore those facts. This Federal Government has done things to deal with the difficulties in the public hospital system up till now and it is offering to take more steps, as I have just listed, to deal with the matter in the near future-as a consequence of proper, responsible discussion with the State Health Ministers, who all recognise that the problem of increasing waiting lists is a complex issue which cannot be dealt with by the simplistic sloganeering that we have heard from Senator Baume opposite. I turn to the next point raised by Senator Baume. It was no surprise to those of us on this side of the chamber that he did not address the issues raised in the wording of his proposal of a discussion of a matter of public importance. He suggested that bulk billing was the next of the causes of all the disasters we are confronting. I do not know how bulk billing can be disadvantaging families in Australia when it is clearly directly advantaging them. In particular, it is advantaging those who are least able to pay; that is, the poorer people, the pensioners. I understand that even the Opposition would be inclined to continue bulk billing for people in those groups. Should we understand that they are not to be included in Senator Baume's definition of `family'? Senator Baume should not give us simplistic comments; bulk billing is of enormous advantage to families in this country. Opposition support for bulk billing completely contradicts the terms of the wording of the matter of public importance. Senator Michael Baume further suggested that somehow bulk billing is responsible for over- usage. He gave figures showing that in, I think, the last year of the Fraser Government the average was 5.8 medical services per person per year. That is wrong. Basically, the Opposition has taken the utilisation rates for the first few months of Medicare and scaled them up for a full year. When full yearly statistics are compared it can be seen that in 1983, the last full calendar year of the final Fraser Government health scheme, each Australian used an average of 7.70 medical services. How does that compare with the 1986 calendar year figure given by Senator Michael Baume of 7.68 services under the current Medicare scheme? There is very little difference. A study in the 1970s by the Australian Medical Association showed that under the Medibank agreement of the Whitlam Government there was almost no increase of services. The figures suggest that there is not much difference under the bulk billing proposal and the current arrangements for Medicare. Senator Michael Baume may by all means criticise the scheme, offer constructive criticism, but he should not falsify figures and rabbit around with wild claims about bulk billing being the cause of, according to this proposal, hardships on Australian families. It is directly advantaging many Australian families. Senator Michael Baume thinks that by misrepresenting the facts he will be able to make some long, discursive track into some kind of tax payments by people which might be disadvantaging some families. Further, he added that if the Opposition gained government it would continue bulk billing. I am not sure what sense we can make of that except that Senator Michael Baume has not done his homework comprehensively in that area. Senator Michael Baume —You have not listened. Senator CROWLEY —I had to sit here for 20 minutes listening. Let me compare the health costs of comparable countries. The health bill in Australia as a percentage of gross domestic product is 7 1/2 per cent compared to the United Kingdom figure of 6 1/2 per cent. Canada, with a comparable system and a comparable population, has a figure of 8.2 per cent. The United States of America, which has nothing like our current Medicare scheme, has a figure of 11 per cent. If the Australian health costs were to go from the current 7 1/2 per cent of gross domestic profit to the 11 per cent figure of America, that would cost the taxpayers of Australia an extra $9 billion. That would bite. The health bill in Australia is very responsible and the Medicare costing to the taxpayers of this country compares very favourably with the freer scheme in America, which is very expensive. Again, hardship being imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies cannot be sustained on those figures. Recently the Economic Planning Advisory Council released Council paper No. 27 on aspects of the social wage, which is a review of social expenditures and redistribution. I would like to turn now to that because it also highlights another significant contribution of this Government to the betterment and benefit of families in this country and completely refutes the claims of Senator Michael Baume's proposal. This document defines a social wage. It says: Social wage can be broadly defined as that part of government spending which provides benefits to individuals and families chiefly comprising government spending on health, education, social security, housing and community amenities. The social wage refers to those items of government expenditure that are capable of making a direct contribution to living standards of households. On page 29 it goes on to say: The social wage plays a particularly important role for households with dependent children and again in later life when age pensions support retirement and when health benefits become more important. In this matter of public importance we have a claim that hardships are being imposed on Australian families. Australian families are very varied. The definitions include those with or without dependent children or dependent elderly people. If we take the definition of family to include those with dependent children, this social wage, as mentioned in this EPAC document, plays a particularly important role for households with dependent children. The EPAC paper illustrates this point and points out how the social wage is of great benefit to families in Australia-again in complete contradiction of the claims made in this debate today. The social wage particularly advantages families because it returns to families in this country great benefits under the social wage government expenditure. It is a point often lost-I think almost invariably lost-by the Opposition when it argues that families are suffering in this country. This is a time of great difficulty for people in this country. There is no doubt about that. But at the same time, and despite these difficult times, this Government has managed, through its creation of jobs, its income policies and its very significant increase in social wage expenditure, to benefit Australian families. That is in complete contradiction of the terms of this matter of public importance. I draw Senator Michael Baume's attention to that document. It is very useful and would make a great contribution to further debates in which he may wish to participate. The EPAC paper, which is entitled `Aspects of the Social Wage', indicates the relative decline in social wage support for families which took place under the Fraser Government and the greater support that families have had in this area from the Hawke Government. That is undeniable; it is absolutely true. I do not understand how the Opposition can ignore the fact that the social wage has benefited so many families in this country-those families that have access to education at every level and those families that have access to dramatically increased health cover. I find it remarkable that the Opposition would say that things are much worse for families. Prior to the introduction of Medicare, two million Australian people were not covered by insurance. Those two million people had to remain ill or risk a huge bill when they went to the doctor. Those two million people are blissfully ignored by the Opposition when it examines the benefits of Medicare to Australian families. Those were the two million people who remained in Medibank with the first of the five variations that were introduced under the seven years of Fraser. There is clear evidence that many people choose Medicare and, in that choosing, appreciate the benefit to them and their families of being in Medicare. Because of the time constraints, I will not illustrate the examples in that EPAC document about the social wage. But they very clearly support the social wage contribution through health expenditure that is of great benefit to Australian families. Through the redistribution and the progressive nature of the Medicare funding, it is of particular benefit to Australian families at the lower end of the income scale. We benefit from Medicare outlays not only in general but in particular too, because a Medicare levy does not have to be paid until a single person's income reaches $8,030 or a married couple's or sole parent's income reaches $13,370, with an addition of $1,660 per dependent child or student. Those people at the lowest end of the income scale in this country are also guaranteed their Medicare health coverage under this Government. I say to Senator Baume that many of those people are what we call family people. Those people at the lowest level of income, that is, a married couple or a sole parent with an income up to $13,000-plus and those couples with two children and with an income of $16,000 do not have to pay any Medicare levy. That, plus the redistribution of Medicare funding and arrangements for the delivery of services, advantages enormously those Australian families who are least able to provide for their health care compared with those who are better off and better able to contribute towards it. Finally, Senator Michael Baume's abusive terms about the state of medical care in this country are really appalling. Very recently I received from the Australasian Epidemiological Association a letter which finished with the following statement: The Australian health care system has achieved an enviable reputation for delivery of therapeutic health services. Its ability to deliver effective preventive care is just beginning. Another great contribution of this Government, both in Medicare funding and in other initiatives, is in the area of preventive health. All of those things are of great benefit to Australian families. They make for an improved health status of the community which has to be of benefit to Australian families. There is no way that the Opposition can claim any support, any justification from facts or data, for the terms of this matter of public importance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(3.45) —We are addressing a matter of public importance which states: The hardship imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies. Of course, Senator Michael Baume, the new health spokesperson for a now totally disintegrated Opposition, has raised this matter of pub- lic importance today in an attempt to raise his personal profile in the health portfolio. He has shown us his colours, but I am afraid that all we have seen is a continuation of the anti-Medicare tirade of his predecessor in another place. The Australian Democrats do not condemn Medicare. Our party has consistently proclaimed our support for the principle of a fair and universal basic health cover for all Australians. We believe that a basic level of care must be guaranteed by our community to all of its members. The problems facing our health system, like those facing our economy as a whole, speak for themselves. We will not solve them by continuing, with blinkers on, down one path proposed by the Government. We will certainly not solve them either by the so-called expenditure cuts and `user pays burden on the individual' approach of the Opposition. The fact is that we will not fix the health system or the economy by adhering to the rigid ideologies of either the Right or the far Right. To find creative, sound solutions we have to rise above the philosophical dichotomies and sensibly assess the possibilities. The Australian Democrats acknowledge that some efforts have been made and are being made by the Hawke Government towards more effective health policies that are of benefit to the community in general and families in particular. These include the initiation of the Better Health Commission. Of course, the challenge there will be to facilitate action on its very fine range of recommendations, and perhaps for the Commission to survive and continue. There has also been the establishment of a consumer health forum. The challenge there for the Government is to use this consultative vehicle in a manner that will advance health policy in the interests of Australians, in particular Australian families. We have commended, too, the provision of a safety net for users of pharmaceutical products, which ensures a ceiling of $250 for families which find it necessary to use medication in substantial quantities. Those are some of the measures that do deserve and get some commendation from the Australian Democrats. Of course, although the Hawke Government apparently maintains its commitment to Medicare, it is writhing painfully through the unpalatable procedure of expenditure cuts on every front. The influence of domestic and international speculators has assured the victory of the economics of the New Right, whose influence pervades the health policies of the Government and of the several factions of the Opposition. What conservative economists advocate today, as we have seen all too often over the past months, the Hawke Government seems to implement tomorrow. The circus continues with Joh, John and Ian vying to outdo each other on their promises to cut social spending by even greater margins. The Democrats reject this approach to managing the economy and we reject it as a means of mending our health system. Reforms are clearly necessary. The cost to the community of financing health care is growing. Patients seeking elective surgery face long waits before they are treated and our hospitals cannot obtain enough nursing staff. As recent inquiries initiated by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) indicate, we are facing an excessive supply of medical graduates, in many ways inadequately trained, and inexcusable problems in determining whether pharmaceuticals have been certified as safe for marketing. The health system has problems. It has empty beds in some areas, demand for beds in other areas, and beds that are inappropriately occupied, for instance, by nursing home patients. Alongside that maldistribution, we face the need to provide much more comprehensive social services to cushion the consequences of the policies of deinstitutionalisation. We have a rapidly aging population, and a rapidly burgeoning medical technology and associated health care possibilities. The resulting increase in demand for medical services is one of the problems that we face, and I shall return to that matter later. Public health problems are associated with poverty and hopelessness in the community, both of which are on the increase. The long term stress and the effects on health of extended unemployment, domestic violence, substance abuse and child poverty are well documented. The need for better preventive health care is espoused in numerous medical and professional publications, yet we seem to lack the political will to reconsider our allocation of funding priorities to favour prevention and to acknowledge the breadth of social and environmental factors that influence health. The problem is not Medicare, and the solution is not cutting billions off the budget. The Liberal Party proposal to fund tax cuts by more service cuts will clearly favour the wealthy, and that is the crux of the matter. Amidst all Senator Baume's rhetoric about the well being of Australian families, we need to ask: Which families? Tax cuts for high income families mean spending cuts on employment training, family allowances, tertiary education and health care. The abolition of Medicare and the widespread requirement for costly private health insurance clearly must benefit the already well-off families. The Opposition's proposal quite simply espouses a health system where the availability of care is directly tied to ability to pay. The Australian Democrats reject that user pays principle in the area of basic health care. The criterion for treatment must be medical need, not financial means. The Opposition's proposals are merely the imposition of a flat tax system, where people will pay through the private medical benefits system at a flat tax level, as opposed to the current system of the Medicare levy, which is clearly a progressive system that does not impact on low income families. It is yet again another flat tax proposal, which is matched by the Government with its flat tax imposed on tertiary students. The Opposition's rhetoric about cutting expenditure is nothing more than a verbal smokescreen. What would follow from its policies is not a cut in health care costs, but simply a transfer of expenditure from the public to the private sector. People will not stop needing medical services; they will just have to pay directly out of their pockets, depending on their health status, rather than fairly through the tax system. The reduction in Government spending would not represent a saving, but simply a shifting of the burden through insurance premiums and to the uninsured ill. The demolition of Medicare not only would cost the majority of Australians-low and middle income families in particularly-much more in proportion to their incomes, but also would not solve the array of problems facing the health system. Most of the problems bedevilling the system during this decade would have done so under the fifth and final Fraser scheme and under most other possible financing arrangements. Medicare is not to blame for the chronic shortage of nurses in Australian hospitals. The predecessor to Senator Baume in the shadow Health portfolio has been quoted as saying that the massive public hospital queues were a direct result of the Government's Medicare failure. That clearly demonstrates the Opposition's failure to recognise that the problem is that nursing staff are unavailable as a result of decades of exploitation of mainly women workers, who were supposed to care for the sick and dying out of the goodness of their hearts, irrespective of pay and conditions. They have, quite rightly, finally refused to continue to do so. In many ways, the health system was built on false foundations for all of the years that those staff were not remunerated in proportion to their contribution to the system. The real cost of providing nursing care would have emerged during the last few years, whichever party had been in government, and whatever health care system had been in operation. Similarly, Medicare alone is not to blame for the alleged increase in medical servicing. In fact, it is not clear from the figures whether a significant increase has occurred. Members of the enrolled population received an average of 7.7 medical services in both the last calendar year, 1986, and the last calendar year of the fifth Fraser scheme, 1983. The practice of bulk billing may mean less disincentive to the community to undertake certain medical services, but other significant factors would similarly have contributed to that, and would have been in place whether Joh or John had led the government over that period. For instance, the availability of ever more sophisticated medical technology and media coverage of medical possibilities has contributed greatly to our health care costs, and some difficult decisions will be involved in addressing this technology-led growth in demand. The growth in Australia of medical malpractice litigation has also contributed to excessive servicing because practitioners feel compelled to cover their backs against legal action. Again, that problem is not easily answered by, or sometimes distinguished from, deliberate abuse by overservicing, and it is not addressed by the Opposition. The dilemma that we face is that the sum of what is medically possible and individually desired is infinite demand and a potentially infinite increase in costs. Of course, it is politically unpalatable for politicians to be seen to seek to impose a limit on what the electorate wants. The truth is that the resource cake is limited, and that for every front page cute kid with a liver transplant, or every take-home baby in vitro fertilisation success, there is a trade-off. It would take courage rarely seen in politics to reassess those priorities. Yet courage, innovation, consumer consultation and an illusive balance of economic realism and compassion are badly needed, not a firing of shots from one side of the chamber to the other about who will do the best job on an ideological basis. Both demand and supply of health services are badly askew. Minimising bed use, better policing of fraud and overservicing and the introduction of diagnostic-related reimbursement would all help. The Australian Democrats indicated last year our initial support for the development of health maintenance organisations and other initiatives that would change some of the incentives built into fee for service medicine. A workable system must exist somewhere between giving free service to everyone and the free market dream of the New Right. The forthcoming economic statement carries with it the threat of cuts to measures directed at the health, welfare and education of Australians, which were so trumpeted by the Australian Labor Party until the Hawke Government came to power. Let us not have cuts to health care that merely transfer costs to individuals and to the State governments that carry the responsibility for managing our hospital system. Let us instead have an increase in public revenue by, for instance, abolishing negative gearing on unproductive company takeovers, eliminating transfer pricing, taxing luxury goods imports and the export of Australian money speculating against our currency and other means, to ensure that the corporate sector makes its due contribution to government revenue, in addition to that contributed by the ordinary families of this country. The Australian Democrats will oppose deceptive and dangerous cuts in health care, from whichever side they come, but will support innovative and sensible measures to optimise the efficient provision of services to all Australian families. Above all, I want to stress the Australian Democrats' strong view that, whatever administrative, funding or care arrangements are made in the name of health policy, the overall cost in terms of money and misery will not be reduced until we, as a nation, place much more emphasis on prevention-on achieving wellness, as opposed to curing illness. Public health promotion, education in nutrition and action to encourage healthy and safe lifestyles and to encourage individuals to make responsible decisions in their own lives, supported by community based services, will be needed to achieve a healthier population. As I said earlier, we also need to recognise the stress caused by social factors; it is not only health policies that affect people's health. Both the Government and the Opposition have a history of allowing the impact of the current economic difficulties to fall on those least able to cope, and who pay once they suffer the physical breakdown of some kind that is almost inevitable in those circumstances. Perhaps it is the case that until we have a healthy economy we will not have a healthy community. But in the meantime prevention must be stressed. Those who can pay must do so to help this economy get back on its feet again. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(4.00) —Once again the Opposition is bringing to the attention of the Government, as a matter of public importance, the appalling state of the Government's health care system. Senator Crowley told us today that she failed to understand why we believe that Australian families are facing hardship because of the health care system introduced by this Government. I draw to her attention the result of a survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in March last year but published only in November last year, just five months ago, which indicated that 46 per cent of couples with children and on a family income of less than $126 a week have taken out private health cover. The mind boggles. How can families, couples with dependent children, on less than $126 a week afford to take out private hospital cover? Why would they struggle to do so? Why were these people so concerned about the present system which was meant to be so fair? We all remember hearing so much about this wonderful system when it was introduced. Remember the letter we all got from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) saying: `Congratulations. You are now a member of Medicare'? Why would 46 per cent-nearly half-of families in Australia on incomes lower than $126 a week take out private health cover? Senator Coates —How many people were in that sample? Senator WALTERS —This survey was not done by me. It was done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I sincerely hope that Senator Coates is not querying that body which his Government supports so thoroughly. Why were these families so concerned? What an indictment of a government's policy! Surely the Government has never had a clearer message that it is hurting the families of Australia than that survey. What has the Government done about it? We have had complete silence. Senator Crowley told us today that the Government is developing plans or programs, along with the States, to overcome the problem of long waiting lists. We do not know what the programs are and we do not know what the Commonwealth input is; but we are told that the Government, which has now been in office for four years, is going to conduct programs. I can tell honourable senators why these people have opted for private health cover. They have done so because they cannot get themselves, their wives or their children into the public hospital system. In Victoria, which is the only State which keeps regular figures on hospital waiting lists, there has been an increase in hospital waiting lists. In January 1986, 27,900 people were on waiting lists in Victoria alone. In November that figure had gone up to 28,500. It is now 34,308. As I said, Victoria is the only State which keeps figures on its waiting lists. I wonder what the New South Wales figures are. The New South Wales Labor Government will not keep the statistics. It refuses to do so. We are told that the only thing the Federal Government is doing about the situation is getting together with State Ministers for Health and thinking about programs. This is after four years of the Hawke Government, and the figures have been getting worse. What was the Government's promise to us on the introduction of Medicare? We certainly had promises from Dr Blewett. We all remember them. He said that middle and low income families would receive the greatest benefit from Medicare. But they cannot get into the hospitals, so how do they receive the benefit? Dr Blewett said: Under the Hawke Government, Medicare will continue to provide essential medical and hospital cover for every Australian through the fair and affordable one per cent levy. Senator Michael Baume —That is if you can get into a hospital. Senator WALTERS —One cannot get into a hospital. The levy has gone up. The ceiling has been abolished. So much for the promises of this Government. We all remember the wonderful Medicare advertisements. How much did they cost the Australian taxpayer? One such advertisement was headed: `Why Medicare is good for the system'. How can Medicare be good for the system when one cannot get into the public hospitals? We all remember the lovely letter the Prime Minister sent to us all, saying that the Medicare system would lower our inflation rate by reducing the cost of living of most Australians. What has occurred? The cost of living has gone through the roof. The letter said: Two out of three families will be paying less for the cover that they now enjoy. Or so the Prime Minister told us. We are all aware that 46 per cent of very low income earners are now being forced to insure privately to be able to get into the hospital system. Why has the Government done this horrific thing to the health care system? It has done it because of pure ideology and nothing else. Government members claim that they are socialists. They have proved that they are socialists. They are attempting to socialise medicine through the back door. Dr Blewett has said: `It is my hope that the absence of gap insurance will promote direct billing and place market limits on overcharging'. He was hoping that all the doctors would bulk bill and that all the people would use Medicare only, so driving the private hospitals out and making sure that the doctors, once they were all bulk billing and being paid by the Government, were socialised. We all remember Dr Deeble whom Dr Blewett appointed. We all remember Dr Deeble and Dr Scotton and Gough Whit- lam's old system. Dr Deeble was the architect of that disaster. Dr Deeble said: Putting private hospitals into three classes- we remember the three categories of hospitals- is a very first step towards putting private hospitals into the public system. This is a very big step, but it is a long-term aim. That comes from the architect of the scheme. Putting private hospitals into the public system is what Medicare is all about. That is the ideology of the socialists opposite. Let us get on to the bulk billing philosophy. I would like to quote someone who the Government certainly believes is one of the most expert people in the health area, Professor Penington. He has been appointed by this Government to many positions, and perhaps the most notable is his position on the task force looking into the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. He took on those appointments only on condition that he would be able to express his own views and that he would not be governed by government interference in his private thoughts. He called for the scrapping of universal bulk billing for medical services, a central provision of Medicare. Professor Penington said: `You have got to get rid of universal bulk billing for everyone'. He agrees with us where we have pleaded with this Government that the only way it can contain health costs is to have bulk billing for pensioners and the disadvantaged groups, such as the low income earners. The Government cannot have universal bulk billing and say to the entrepreneurial doctors-and we have a few now in New South Wales, and one in particular-`Bulk bill and you can do as many services as you like', because that is what that doctor is doing. Professor Penington, who is the Government's chief adviser, is pointing this out and saying: `If you do not contain the costs, the whole thing will be a crisis' He said: `Revamp Medicare to curb costs'. Those are the sorts of headlines, and his first position is: Scrap universal bulk billing. When this was brought to the attention of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett)-remember that Professor Penington is the Government's chief adviser-a spokesman for Dr Blewett said that the Government would want to examine Professor Penington's statement closely before making comment. Of course there has been no comment at all from Dr Blewett. So what has happened since the Government took over the health care system? What has happened to Medicare since it was introduced? We have had nurses on strike, doctors resigning, beds closing in public hospitals and waiting lists, and now we have the costs going out the window. We all remember this sort of statement: `Medicare-a dream that for some has become a nightmare'. That is the sort of statement we have heard. What happened to health costs last year? They went up by 26 per cent while our inflation rate was 9.8 per cent. Dr Blewett's comment was: `We got it a little bit wrong'. I read again what Professor David Penington said: Health care faces a future of conflict crisis and collapse, and the national health bill will grow by $1 billion in the next five to 10 years if nothing is done to change it' I have not got time to quote everything that that gentleman says. I wish I had as perhaps then the people of Australia would understand how very severe the position is. If we do not do something about it those 46 per cent of families on that very low income will be joined by the remainder of families. I have no idea how those people are affording that private insurance, but because they put the health of their families and children at such a high priority, they are prepared to struggle and no doubt do without other essential items to be able to cover their health insurance costs. If the Government will not listen to the Opposition about the need to cut out bulk billing, if the Government will not listen to Professor Penington that it should cut this out, how in the heck can it expect not only the people on those low incomes, but the rest of Australians to be able to afford to pay the levy that this Government is incurring on this as well as on those families' private insurance? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.15) —We are debating a matter of public importance raised by the Opposition which is framed in the following terms: The hardship imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies. I deny that there has been such a failure and I therefore deny that the hardship that the Opposition claims follows. No one would try to suggest that the system was working as perfectly as we would want it to. Ideally there should be much shorter waiting lists in public hospitals, but the hardship that this involves at present, to the extent that it occurs, is nothing compared with that which existed under the multiple health insurance schemes offered by the Fraser Government and the same multiple health insurance arrangements that the Howard policy threatens to impose upon the people. I say `the Howard policy' because no member of the National Party of Australia has spoken in this debate. I presume they have not yet got their act together sufficiently to determine their policy, or even who they might have as a spokesperson on health. There is nobody here from the Queensland National Party or from the other National Party. We have people from the Michael Baume part of the Liberal Party but unfortunately we have nobody from the Peter Baume part of the Liberal Party. If we had, we might have heard a more reasonable attitude expressed. Senator Michael Baume —It is not important enough for you to put up a Minister. Senator COATES —The honourable senator knows perfectly well that the Minister representing the Minister for Health was not able to deal with the matter because of having to go to a Cabinet meeting. I will just deal with one matter that Senator Michael Baume misrepresented in his speech in relation to the answer that Senator Tate gave to a question at Question Time earlier in the day. Senator Baume tried to suggest that Senator Tate said that there was no concern by the Government about waiting lists and that no action was to be taken as it was for the States to take action. I suggest that Senator Baume check the Hansard tomorrow and he will see that he has misrepresented Senator Tate in his answer, who of course said, as is a fact, that because the States are responsible for the hospital system they have the prime responsibility, but that in liaison with the Commonwealth there are plans to deal with the waiting list problem and that the Government was of course concerned about it. We had from Senator Baume and Senator Walters all this talk of crisis in health care delivery and about some policy of forcing people out of private hospital insurance cover. The Opposition feigns concern for the poor but its real concern, as in so many areas, is to add to the incomes of higher income earners in the community by reducing the cost of health insurance for those people and by increasing it for those on lower incomes. That is apart from its concern to add to the incomes of its private practitioner supporters. The point about the Medicare system that is most important is that payment for it is in accordance with ability to pay. The Opposition says: `Oh, we would let off the poor'. There is this terrible way in which it refers to the poor under its policies. But then it says that everybody else, even those on quite low incomes and upwards, would have to pay exactly the same amount on private health insurance as the very high income earners in the community have to pay. As the Australian Democrats said, that is another example of the Opposition wanting to have indirect taxation, flat taxation, which is not in accordance with the ability to pay. I am rather surprised that the Opposition gave the health portfolio to Senator Michael Baume, taking the shadow ministry position away from direct confrontation with the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, in the House of Representatives. I have to say that the honourable senator's performance today makes Mr Porter look good in comparison. Let me deal with some of the matters that have been raised in this debate. The Opposition suggested that Medicare was a failure. It is obvious to everyone in the community that it is the most successful, the most stable, the most community accepted health insurance arrangement this country has seen; and those opposite want to change it. They made multiple changes during the Fraser Government years. I do not want to hark back to the Fraser years as though they proved everything. Senator Button —Same people, Senator. Senator COATES —There are many of the same people around, including the former Treasurer, who is now trying to be leader of one of the oppositions. Every year during that time they changed the health insurance arrangements. There were five major changes. If we take into account some of the other fiddling about the edges we see that there were 10 different health insurance arrangements during those seven years of the Fraser Government. The disruption, the uncertainty and the unfairness involved in those changes was appalling. The Opposition comes up with nothing new. The Opposition proposes the same prescription, the same opting out possibilities. It says that everybody ought to pay the same private health insurance, and so forth. It is not likely to be given the opportunity to implement those proposals, but it shows that it has not learnt a thing from past experience. Basically, it is blinded by its ideological opposition to any sort of government involvement and it wants to throw everyone back on the mercy of the private health insurance funds. I regret that we have a system of medical care that is overwhelmingly based on `private practice fee for service'. It is a system requiring health insurance to help people cover themselves for these fees. But given that necessity I am pleased that we have developed a system of health insurance as good as Medicare is and about which there is virtually zero public complaint. There is overwhelming community acceptance and praise for it. People are pleased that at last we have a stable system that they have got to know and welcomed. It is very successful and efficient. If the Opposition were truthful it would acknowledge the efficiency of the Health Insurance Commission in administering Medicare and Medibank Private. Senator Michael Baume complains about the fact that the Health Insurance Commission needs 3,000 people to run the system, but the number is fewer than the equivalent number that was required to administer the same responsibility when the private funds were involved. The system is universal and it is simple. Because it is simple and universal everyone is covered automatically and the system works efficiently. Most important of all, we do not have large numbers of people, as we had under conservative governments, without adequate health care cover. Health is one of those things that ought not have to be insured like a car or a house. It ought to be automatic and that is the way it is under this Government's system. The community is being threatened by the Opposition promising to return to the elitist system that operated under the Fraser Government. The Opposition keeps raising the point about the number of services per person per year. To be charitable it has again shown how innumerate it is, but perhaps to be more honest it shows how dishonest it is with statistics. Senator Michael Baume quoted an average number of 5.8 services per person per year when Medicare began. What he did, if he would admit it, was to extend to a full year the figures for the first few months that Medicare was in operation, ignoring the fact that there is inevitably a processing lag, and then compared those figures with the most recent figures. He claims that there is a 20 per cent increase, from 5.8 to 7.7, in the number of medical services per person per year. In 1983, the last full calendar year of Medibank, each Australian used an average of 7.70 medical services. In the 1986 calendar year-a full year comparison-the average was 7.68. That is virtually an identical figure. We can make a great song and dance and say that we have had a major reduction in the number of visits to doctors per year per person, but we would not be so silly as to say that a reduction of 0.02 is a major one. We do say that it is about the same and that there can be no claim that bulk billing has led to overservicing. I just hope that the Opposition will now stop using those fraudulent figures to make those false comparisons. The recent survey of Sydney general practitioners by the Australian Consumers Association shows that the direct billing arrangement works to the advantage of pensioners, beneficiaries and consumers in less affluent areas. That is one of the prime reasons we maintain that bulk billing is important. Not even the Opposition has advocated the abolition of direct billing for qualifying pensioners. The point is that the pensioners and beneficiaries are responsible for about 70 per cent of all direct billing services. The case against direct billing-if there was a case-comes down to the other 30 per cent of services which are direct billed to the general public. As this represents about 15 per cent of all medical services, the cost in 1986-87 would amount to about $429m. In the unlikely event that ending direct billing for this proportion of services resulted in even 10 per cent of them not being provided at all, the saving would be $43m, or $64m in the even less likely scenario that 20 per cent of these services were not performed. This is in stark contrast to the Opposition claim that direct billing is somehow responsible for a cost blow-out of $600m per annum. The figures are not even in the same range. The Opposition has failed to understand that overservicing through direct billing is at the most a marginal issue. As they offer the abolition of direct billing as a major savings option, it is clear from the figures I have cited that the Opposition has no grasp of the fundamental financial bases of the health portfolio at all. Senator Walters cited figures from an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey. She said that 46 per cent of couples with children and a family income of less than $126 per week had taken out private health insurance. I asked her how many families were in that position. I could not believe that there would be very many families with that sort of income. They must be people on very low incomes who refuse to claim a pension. If they were a couple on a pension and had children they would, of course, be getting more than that. She has chosen from that survey a tiny extreme example which is actually less than 0.2 per cent of all contributors-a total of 16,000 families in the whole community. Senator Walters —Look it up and do something about it. Senator COATES —Okay. I am happy to answer the honourable senator's point despite the fact that she has picked from a survey partial and strange figures. I agree that we should not have a situation whereby 46 per cent of those people have taken out private health insurance. They should not bother. They cannot afford it. I regret that people do so, especially those who have such low incomes. They do so because of the rhetoric we get from the Opposition, from the Australian Medical Association and from other conservative groups in the community which frighten people into paying for private health insurance which they cannot afford. I regret that people who can ill afford it are frightened into paying money in that way. Senator Michael Baume —Do the queues exist or don't they? Face up to the truth for a change. Senator COATES —Senator Baume has no basis for claiming that he is truthful in this respect. He misrepresented figures from-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.31) —The Liberal Party makes no apology for raising in the Senate this afternoon the following matter: The hardship imposed on Australian families by the failure of the Hawke Government's health policies. Labor spokesmen in the debate have not been convincing. They have admitted the deficiencies of the Medicare system, but they have not been able to maintain that in this chamber and they will not do so with the public in this election year. Our protest is at the Government's Medicare system, the costs that it imposes on Australian families and the inadequate access to health services that it provides to Australian families. We are not protesting about the adequacy of health professional services. Doctors and nurses are increasingly well trained. We do not receive from our constituents complaints about those noble professions and the exercise of that professional work. There is also increasing emphasis on good, preventive health measures in Australia. Although we can all come up with improvements for the training of medical personnel, we are not concerned here with the actual delivery of one average health service. We are concerned about the burden that the Labor Government has placed on Australian families by way of cost and by limiting access. It is that which Australians are crying out for the Government to remedy. If this debate is only one instance of this election year debate in the community at large, let the people of Australia ask themselves whether they are better off after four years of this Labor Government's health schemes or whether they were better off under the previous Government's schemes. Are costs higher now? Of course they are. Is access more restricted, especially to hospitals? Of course it is. It is those concerns that we bring forward. There is hardship for Australian families and we want that to be well understood in this chamber. The costs for health services to the average family have increased from $500 a year to $750 a year during the past four years under the Labor Government. That represents a 50 per cent increase in costs to the average Australian family. The rate of increase is rising at twice that of inflation. I am concerned about that, as is the Liberal Party. To be more concise for the purists who read Hansard, there has been an increase from $9.66 a week prior to the election of the Hawke Labor Government to a present cost of $14.30 a week. In round figures, there has been an increase from $10 a week to $15 a week, or from $500 a year to $750 a year, for the average family. Those real costs are being felt by the pockets of Australian families, which is why they are putting the thumbs down to the Labor Government's health delivery system. That is why Medicare is being rejected by those families that complain about the costs. Let me give some examples that come together as to why health costs have gone up for the average family. Firstly, the Medicare levy pays for medical services; that is, when a person consults a doctor. It also pays for public care in a public hospital; that is, a person does not have a choice of doctor. Returning to Senator Coates's remarks just now about why even those on the lowest incomes take out private health insurance, the reason they do so is that they want a choice of doctor. They want to be able to go to even a public hospital and have the doctor of their choice. I remind Labor senators that half of the beds in public hospitals are private beds because the patients who go to even half of the public hospitals, let alone all the private hospitals, want to exercise their choice of doctor, the doctor who knows them best, who has their medical records and who has referred them to a particular specialist. They want that ability to choose; they do not want the willy-nilly doctor on roster that evening or afternoon in the hospital. That is why it is still sound for private medical health insurance to be taken out. The Medicare levy was proposed by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and by the Government as one per cent of taxable income. For the average family with a taxable income of $500 a week the Medicare levy is one per cent, or $5 a week. A family with an income of $1,000 a week-that is, a wealthy family-pays $10 a week. Despite the assurances before Medicare was introduced that the one per cent level would be maintained, lo and behold the levy was increased in the last Budget. For next year, it has gone up to 1.25 per cent of taxable income. Everyone's levy has gone up 25 per cent. This year, in the tradition, because it will take effect from 1 November, it has gone up by 14 1/2 per cent. When everyone pays their tax at the end of this financial year they must add on 14 1/2 per cent to the Medicare levy. The second example concerns private health insurance. At the end of 1982, in the Fraser Government period, the cost of basic table hospital insurance in my state of South Australia was $7 a week. Because we had a full tax rebate for that payment-a third could be taken off-the net cost was $4.70. What is the cost now of insuring on the basic rate for the same hospital bed? It is $9.40. So not only have we gone from zero levy to one per cent and then 1.25 per cent; we have also gone from an effective $4.70 a week for private hospital cover to $9.40. Thirdly, Medicare pays for only 85 per cent of a hospital or medical service. The other 15 per cent is called the gap and it is to be paid for by the user. People used to be able to insure for the gap, but that has been banned; they cannot insure for the gap. There was also a ceiling; the gap could not exceed $10 for a medical service. In the last Budget, the amount was increased to $20. In our day, pharmacy prescriptions used to be $4. Then they became $5. Now the maximum that the general public can pay for a prescription is $10-that decision was taken in the last Budget-except for those few items that cost the pharmaceutical industry less than $10. Fifty drugs have been taken off the free list, even for pensioners, who for the first time must pay for those 50 items directly. The fourth example concerns tax deductions. I have said that, under the Fraser Government, all medical expenditure, including health insurance, was tax deductible. Not only have tax deductions for contributions to private medical and hospital insurance funds been wiped out by the Government; the Government has also wiped out the concessional expenditure rebate. In the past, as people filled in their tax returns they would write down the personal contributions they made; the amount of gaps-that is, the 15 per cents that they paid to their doctors-or what they paid to a hospital. If they had insured for the use of an ambulance, a dentist or a pharmacy item, all of those matters could be listed and they would gain a rebate and a third of that amount would go back into their pockets. That has all been wiped out. On whatever level we look at this question, the costs have gone up. As has been pointed out by my colleagues Senator Michael Baume and Senator Walters, in 1986, according to the official figures throughout the whole of the last calendar year, health costs increased by 26 per cent. That is nearly triple the rate of inflation. This has occurred because of the sorts of factors I have mentioned. It has occurred because the present Government maintains the Medicare monopoly which prevents competition in the provision of medical and hospital services. Senator Coates —Oh! Senator TEAGUE —It does. It has also eliminated the subsidy from the private hospital system and the reduction in the reinsurance trust fund, as a consequence, has forced up the contribution rate for private health insurance. No one can argue about that. Because of the Government's decisions there are additional health costs to the public. I have already mentioned the increase in the maximum gap for a doctor's consultation from $10 to $20. This includes prescription items as well. When we take all these matters into account, there has been a 26 per cent increase. This is the matter which is the burden of our debate in the Senate today. It is not that if a person can get to a doctor or a hospital, or if he can get the services of a nurse, his treatment will be any the less. They provide professional, good services. But the cost and the delay in getting to that doctor or to the hospital as a result of the structure this Government has applied in Medicare has become such a large burden that this is one of the major election issues in this election year. I turn again to the general summary that I mentioned at the beginning. Because of the Government's structuring of Medicare, health service costs to the average family are 50 per cent more now than they were before this Government was elected. The rate of increase in that cost is twice the rate of inflation. Let me turn to access, the insecurity that Australian families have in regard to health services. I acknowledge that, to some extent, this has arisen because of an increase in the general number of surgery cases in our hospitals. It also has arisen to some extent in particular hospitals because of a shortage of nurses. Nevertheless, I make the point most assuredly that the biggest factor is the Medicare factor. Let me quote from an article in the Age last month regarding Professor David Penington. It states: Professor David Penington, who has advised federal and state governments on health policy, said the community rightly expected to have access to public hospitals in return for the 1.25 per cent Medicare levy. Speaking in a personal capacity, Professor Penington said demand for public hospital services, which were becoming increasingly sophisticated and expensive, was not being met because public hospital budgets were being squeezed by shortfalls in Medicare funding. He makes the point that Medicare is a major reason for the lack of access to the hospitals. The article continues: The average expected waiting time for elective surgery for all specialists in Victoria was 2.85 months on 1 January. . . . . The waiting time for ear, nose and throat surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital is 37.8 months; for vascular surgery 20.8 months. Members of the Australian public are saying: `We are paying 50 per cent more in costs; surely we ought to get an improved service'. They are getting a worse service. That is why they condemn the socialist scheme of Medicare and its inability to provide a low cost accessible health service for the average Australian family. That is why we will reform it. Many a statement is made in Australia today that the present Hawke Labor Government has adopted many of the Liberal policies. We hear it said about defence, about monetary matters, about the exchange rate and about the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), the good Minister sitting opposite, with regard to his tariff reforms that have gone entirely in the right direction. Whilst that is said about a number of cases of the present Government adopting Liberal policies, it is never said about health because Medicare is as clear an example of a socialist scheme that is still retained in Australia. It is not effective or efficient. The public knows this because of its costs and because of its denial of access. It needs drastic reform, and the only way that can be achieved is by a change of government. The way to obtain a solution to the costs and the restricted access to health services in Australia is to change from a socialist government to a Liberal government. That will be the way to gain a solution to this matter for Australian families. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.46) —Our matter of public importance this afternoon, which might puzzle people listening to this debate on their radios, is actually about families and health services in Australia. In listening to what has been said over the last hour or so, one might envisage that the average Australian family spent most of its time either lining up for a hospital bed or lining up to see the doctor. We have heard very little about actual health care apart from that delivered by doctors or by hospitals. I would like to go into that a little later. Because there seems to be such an obsession in the Opposition about the cost of Medicare and other issues that go to bulk billing and the progressivity of the Medicare levy, I had better spend a little time concentrating on them and dealing with a few of the shibboleths we have heard. It is no secret at all in Australia that the Opposition dislikes Medicare intensely, that it totally deplores bulk billing and that it also rejects entirely the progressive nature of our Medicare levy. That is not at all surprising when one considers that Medicare is one of the most popular of the Hawke Government's initiatives. Contrary to what we have been led to believe this afternoon, the stability and predictability of our universal health care scheme is endorsed by the vast majority of Australians. This, of course, upsets members of the Opposition no end. If they want to talk about hospitals or doctors' services, they could perhaps so phrase their matter of public importance to direct it towards that. We have heard a great deal indeed about extra costs to families. Let us talk about the average family which Senator Teague seems to be so concerned about and for which, in fact, we have considerable concern. Let us take the case of a married couple on one income with average yearly earnings of $23,600. That family is now paying $5.70 a week by way of levy to cover all medical and hospital treatment it may need. For the vast majority of Australians that is a very satisfactory state of affairs. Let us look at what that family would pay under what we have been led to believe would be the case under a Howard government. The Opposition wants to shift 2.5 million families-that is, all except pensioners and welfare beneficiaries-back to private insurance under an opting out provision. The Opposition says that this will save $3 billion. Senator Knowles —At least they wouldn't be paying twice then. Senator GILES —If Senator Knowles will just wait a little while she will find that that family would be paying not once, not twice, but three or four times what it is paying now. The family has three choices. Senator Knowles —What rubbish! Senator GILES —The honourable senator should listen and she will hear a few things that she needs to know. It could shift to private insurance, stay in Medicare or go back to no cover, as it probably had prior to Medicare. If this family tried to go to private insurance under Howard's scheme, it would pay $27 a week for medical and hospital cover, compared with the $5.70 weekly under Medicare-$27 a week by comparison with the current $5.70. Senator Knowles —The first thing you should do is go and buy yourself a calculator. Senator GILES —Why is it $27 a week? The honourable senator should listen and she will hear. Firstly, honourable senators will recall that no one is now privately insured for medical services. Private insurance currently covers only hospitals because Medicare covers all medical services. So, for a start, a family would need to spend at least $7.90 a week for medical insurance, just to see the doctor. Then you have to add on hospital cover. Howard would have to cut subsidies to patients treated in public hospitals in order to get the balance of his $3 billion savings about which we have heard. Senator Michael Baume —That's all done with mirrors, isn't it? Senator GILES —It is all done with mirrors, says Senator Baume. A Howard government would have to cut Medicare compensation grants and identified health grants, and I will come back to those in a moment too. To cover this loss of revenue public hospitals would have to dramatically increase charges for private patients, thereby increasing private insurance premiums. To make up the effect of the loss of the subsidies would add a further $9.60 a week to the current basic hospital insurance rate of $9. The total cost to our average income family then under the Howard scheme is: Medical insurance $7.90, basic hospital insurance $18.60 and 50c in administrative costs. Senator Knowles —You can't talk about your own scheme, can you? You have to talk about somebody else's. Senator GILES —I will come back to our scheme shortly; just be patient. If our family chose to stay in Medicare, rates would greatly increase because of higher income earners opting out. Indeed, levy rates could go as high as 5 per cent, which would represent a cost of $22.60 a week. That is, our family-the one that members opposite are so concerned about-would be worse off by $14.70 a week or $764 per annum. The progressive nature of Medicare which members opposite profess to despise actually gives the scheme an equitable financial base, that is, it costs more for high income earners and less for low income earners. Under the 1.25 per cent levy a worker on $300 a week pays $3.75 while someone receiving $500 a week pays $6.25. That is one of the very few socialist things, I am sorry to say, about this particular scheme which in fact props up private medicine very efficiently. About two million people had absolutely no cover before Medicare. These people are definitely much better off now than they were previously. Senator Michael Baume —What are they getting for the money they pay? Senator GILES —They are getting security, predictability and stability. For the vast majority of families that is what they seek in relation to their medical and hospital care. We have already covered quite efficiently I think this afternoon questions about improvement in the social wage for Australian families. Senator Coates has gone into the question of overuse; and we have also gone into the question of costs. I refer to a study done for the Health Reinsurance Fund and the conclusion, as follows: In examining the cost to the government of Medicare, it needs to be remembered that there are savings with Medicare and there were (and would be) government health insurance costs without Medicare. The introduction of Medicare has slowed the rapid increase in health insurance costs which was occurring before 1984. The Medicare levy does cover the extra cost to the government of a universal health insurance system. We have not seen anything from the Opposition which makes us feel that we should go in for any drastic change at this stage. Let us look briefly at the question of the shortage of hospital beds. Let us for one moment concede the Opposition's fantasy that there are vast numbers of desperately ill people in Australia waiting for beds. The cause for this is acknowledged by all people as, first, a result of nursing shortages. What did conservative governments do over all those years about nursing shortages? Conservative governments presided over a rapid exodus out of the nursing profession by highly trained, highly skilled and highly motivated women who were not prepared to wait around until someone organised proper tertiary training for them. They had to wait for the Hawke Government to provide that transition from hospital based to tertiary based training, which has begun to attract women back into the nursing profession. In many cases they are still waiting for the wages and conditions that will once again make nursing the attractive and fulfilling profession that it was when Senator Walters and I and several other women in this place did our nursing training many years ago. A shortage of specialist medical services, of course, is creating difficulties but who controls those specialties? Who holds the gate to those specialties? It is the colleges that control entry and make sure that there is only a certain number of, for example, orthopaedic surgeons and eye surgeons in Australia. If there is a fault to be found anywhere surely it is in the short sightedness of those colleges and the numbers they have allowed into those specialty areas over the past few years. Technological change has brought amazing procedures within the reach of very many people who otherwise were never going to consider for themselves coronary bypass surgery, lens implants or hip and other joint replacements. As a result of the improved technology those people are now demanding that they have parts replaced, that they have their quality of life substantially increased and their life expectancy increased. Senator Knowles —How long do they have to wait for hip replacements? Senator GILES —In many cases they are waiting too long but, as I say, that is not as a result of one particular policy of this or any other government; it is a result of a number of circumstances which have developed over the years and which could and should have been foreseen and forestalled. I think we could talk about waiting lists for an hour or so and we would still not come to any sort of agreement. There is a strong possibility that there are many people on waiting lists who are not in any urgent need of surgery or medical attention and who probably will get better in many cases without it, and they are sometimes booked into a number of hospitals. The only State that has done any serious study into its waiting lists is Victoria where a thousand beds have been closed; and it is estimated that an extra 73,000 people could be treated in one year if those beds were re-opened. There are also 1,400 nursing vacancies. All of those issues will have to be redressed before it is possible to make any substantial inroads, I would think, in regard to waiting lists. At the same time I believe that many doctors should be more closely examining their hospitalisation procedures and perhaps asking some more searching questions about the need for hospitalisation. Of course, the development of day hospitals will take quite a lot of pressure off the more costly overnight stays for less complicated procedures. I want to get off the question of those people who seem to have obsessed the Opposition this afternoon and get on to those people we are keeping out of hospitals and away from the doctors. For the benefit of the Senate I will recount a number of programs which have been introduced by this Government over the past two or three years. In the 1986-87 Budget the Government allocated an extra $1m for family planning services. This is on top of the usual recurrent funding for family planning and for family planning education. It has allowed the actual opening up of extra family planning and sexual counselling services in various places around the nation where they are badly needed and where there has been very little expansion in the range of family planning services over the past few years. A couple of weeks ago I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of a new sexual counselling service in Mirrabooka, Western Australia. The service is booked up for the next three or four weeks without any difficulty at all. Also in 1986-87 the Government allocated nearly $1m, and will do so again in the next financial year, for immunisation against measles. There is an international campaign on called `Just One Shot', the purpose of which is to ensure that all the world's children are immunised against measles by 1990. If this is possible, and we believe it is, it means that a great deal of mortality and, just as importantly, morbidity will be avoided as children are immunised against what can be a very debilitating infectious disease. Over the next three years an extra $26m will go into public health-a whole range of health services to keep people healthy and living in healthy conditions. In 1986-87 we allocated $59m for medical research, an increase of nearly 100 per cent on what was allocated to medical research in the last Budget of the Fraser Government. We have allocated $2.8m to immunise babies who are at risk against hepatitis B, which is a dreadfully dangerous disease which attacks tiny children. That is an extremely valuable program and, once again, one that will make inroads into mortality and morbidity in that very vulnerable group of neonates. Talking about dangerous, debilitating and drastic diseases, we have allocated $10m to the treatment of AIDS. In the last 12 months $7.7m has gone towards a very important matter as far as health care delivery is concerned-the transfer of nurses to the tertiary education sector to give them the professional status, the tertiary education, the confidence and the recognition that they so much deserve. I and other members of the Government totally reject the thesis of this extremely spurious matter of public importance. Senator Michael Baume —You pretend that the queues do not exist. Senator GILES —I do not pretend anything does not exist, but I acknowledge that a great many things do exist, greatly in excess of what was available in the time of the Fraser Government. We have no proof whatsoever that there would not be regression to those dark days if indeed there were a change of government. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(5.01) —I believe I have only about four minutes, so I just wish to cap off some of the things that have been said this afternoon. It is a very sad day for Australia in that this afternoon we have had to listen to three Labor Government senators talk about the wonderful health system that we have. There is no wonderful health system in this country. Families get a very raw deal from this Government. Senator Crowley, in her typical patronising and arrogant way, put forward her usual hyperbole, saying that all our claims are rhetoric. If she had spoken to the real people out there in the community she would know that the claims about waiting lists, the claims about people dying while waiting for surgery, are not rhetoric; they are fact. She claimed that in previous years two million people had to remain ill. That is absolutely and utterly absurd. If they could not afford to be looked after, they were looked after anyway. Families are being squeezed by this Government's economic performance, to say nothing of its health problems. Because of our rate of inflation, our rate of interest and our rate of unemployment all of those people are suffering. As a result of all of those problems many families cannot afford private health insurance as well as paying for Medicare, which is the only way they can be assured of getting health services when they need them. They cannot get into private hospitals because they are not privately insured, and they cannot get into public hospitals because there are 100,000 people on the waiting list. Families who are responsible for caring for their own aged are also penalised because they cannot get their aged into public hospitals when they need to. Therefore, when they have to take them to private hospitals they have to pay out of their own pockets. Many young families simply cannot afford to pay that money for their aged, but they will do so in preference to burying them. The fact that costs under the health system have increased by 26 per cent over the last year speaks for itself. Families simply cannot afford to pay 26 per cent more in one year, or pay twice a la the levy and private insurance. We are proposing a return to the freedom of choice that this country so rightly deserves. People do not have to pay both; they need to pay only one or the other. Sadly, many of the public hospitals in this country are at risk of losing their accreditation as teaching hospitals because there is an insufficient mix of patients coming through. They are literally battling to survive. Senator Powell has just walked back into the chamber. She put forward the usual two bob each way bit from the Australian Democrats. She said that the people have to pay out of their own pockets under our proposal. What are they paying now? I would suggest they are not paying out of their own pockets-they are paying through the nose. That is the difference. We are saying people should pay for themselves and look after themselves, but that they do not have to pay twice. As a result we would not have 100,000 people on the waiting list and we would not have 4,500 public hospital beds being closed since the introduction of Medicare. The health system in Australia needs to be tidied up. A Liberal government will tidy it up and look after families in the future. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The summary of the National Agricultural Outlook Conference contained in this Australian Agricultural Council paper before the Senate outlines an economic outlook for the rural sector that is far from optimistic. In fact, the high levels of subsidies for the agricultural products of Australia's trading partners are forcing world market prices down and Australian farmers are suffering as a result. The report does note that over the next five years the value of rural output is likely to increase at a lower rate than the general level of prices unless world market prices show significant improvements. The prospect of such a significant improvement is quite remote when we consider other factors, such as domestic conditions in the United States which are fostering introspection in the United States Congress-I raised this issue yesterday-and the flow of protectionist policies coming from that Democrat dominated Congress. For example, we are told that the export enhancement program, worth millions of dollars per year, is here to stay. The United States highly protectionist omnibus trade Bill appears likely to be passed into law. There is little hope, as the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) informs us, that the agricultural trade problems in the United States will ease before the presidential election of 1988. The European Community also continues to implement highly protectionist policies. It gave subsidies worth over $20 billion this year through the European Community budget. In the United States agricultural protection is worth $21 billion. I reiterate the point I have made before: There is a need to appoint a representative in Washington to lobby the relevant groups and put forward the Australian point of view before these protectionist ideas are enshrined in the legislation. As many will know, the National Farmers Federation is already taking steps in this circumstance, but we must have somebody on the spot before the legislation is enacted. While representation at international meetings does have its value and undoubtedly will contribute in the long run to a reduction in protectionist activities, there is little hard evidence that it is succeeding at the moment. Australian farmers really cannot afford to wait until the traditionally slow international decision-making processes are able to get some practical result. The exceptionally high interest rates we are currently experiencing in Australia are also contributing to the burden of the rural sector. Many farmers are committed to high loan repayments for necessary plant and equipment, and the high interest rates are making dramatic inroads into their already low returns. The report at hand tells us that the average overall rate of return for 1986-87 in the rural sector is minus 7 per cent. More and more farmers are being forced into bankruptcy by the impact of these unpre- cedented high interest rates. Farmers can also expect to lose with the strengthening of the Australian dollar, and the advantage of the depreciating exchange rate has acted to offset in part the impact of falling world commodity prices over the past few years. But the outlook is an unfavourable one for the rural sector and one the Government should be giving its full attention to, given that agricultural products account for such a significant proportion of our export dollar. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(5.09) —I too wish to make some comments in relation to the resolutions of the Australian Agricultural Council's 125th meeting and in particular its findings in relation to the Lazenby report on plant breeding in Australia, which is found on page 44 of its resolutions. While the Council supports plant variety rights for Australia-indeed the Parliament enacted plant variety rights legislation a little while ago-the report also notes that plant variety rights `has the potential to change the marketing of publicly bred varieties and may affect the scope for collaboration between research institutions across States'. This of course was one of the concerns of the Australian Democrats when opposing the plant variety rights legislation in February of this year-that is, a decrease in the free exchange of scientific information on plant material. In opposing plant variety rights the Australian Democrats were joined by many groups in the community, including the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the social justice committee of the Uniting Church in Victoria, Friends of the Earth and the Australian Council of Churches, as well as a large number of smaller community groups with an interest in organic agriculture and related activities. The Democrats fought the passage of the Plant Variety Rights Bill but the Opposition supported the Government, which itself has done an about-face on the issue since it took office, as it has on so many other issues-for example, uranium sales to France, tertiary fees for students, overseas aid, multiculturalism, and on goes the list. As a fall back position the Australian Democrats tried to make to the Plant Variety Rights Bill amendments which included the requirement for merit testing for new plant varieties produced both within Australia and overseas. We were particularly concerned with quarantine, disease and unsuitability for Australian conditions. We also attempted to amend the Bill so that greater public access would be provided to information regarding applications for rights for new plant varieties. We wanted increased appeal mechanisms for people objecting to the granting of rights for a plant variety. We attempted to introduce a clause relating to the liability of a grantee in the event that a variety should turn out to be a weed, a disease carrier, a virus or toxic. Not one of the Democrats' 27 amendments was accepted by the Government or the Opposition. Plant variety rights means the private ownership of living things. The Australian Democrats totally oppose this in principle and in all its forms. A recent decision by the United States Patent Office to allow patenting of new types of animals which are produced by human intervention is a most horrifying extension of plant patenting. From the patenting of plants it seems there could be a move to the patenting of animals. Perhaps the next step is the patenting of new human gene forms designed in scientific laboratories around the world, including Australia. With Australian scientific teams leading the world in animal and human biotechnology and with the great profits to be made it is almost a sure bet that Australia will follow America's lead, as it has with plant variety rights. The links between genetic engineering in animals and humans are so close that one of Australia's leading experts in in vitro fertilisation techniques, Alan Trounson, is a veterinarian. The people of Australia must be told of the excesses which scientists in genetic engineering are taking with living things-human, animal or plant genetics and biotechnology. I am disappointed at the short-sightedness of the Australian Agricultural Council with respect to plant variety rights and I can only hope that it, the Parliament and the Australian people will have the common sense and the foresight to see the dangers of extending plant patenting to animal patenting. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(5.14) —I commend this report, apart from the plant variety rights section, to the Senate. Once again, it is a most valuable summary of the problems of the agricultural and rural sector. I cannot stress too much the importance of the rural sector to Australia's economy. While the proportion of rural exports has declined to around 40 per cent of our total exports, rural export earnings are almost debt free. Rural producers owe very little money abroad and repatriate very little in dividends as the rural industry is for the most part Australian-owned, which is now a rare thing for industry. Rural industry earns 60 per cent of Australia's net export earnings. Individual rural industries are at the moment very hard pressed, as Senator Watson said. The international trade in primary commodities, particularly rural produce, is depressed for a number of reasons beyond the control of Australian farmers. Wheat farmers-mentioned on page 29 of the report-are at the moment particularly hard pressed because of the price of wheat and the various trade wars which are being carried on by the United States of America `on behalf' of its wheat farmers. Rice farmers have also been hit by conditions in the world commodities market. Cotton farmers are facing disastrous cuts in income, while costs are escalating. Sugar farmers have already suffered for a number of years and there does not appear to be much light at the end of the tunnel. The major problem is inability to meet debt commitments, which is exacerbated by falling values of land and consequent loss of security against borrowings. Wheat farmers face poor prices for at least a further two years, and as a result one farmer in five is likely to go to the wall. Yet Australian wheat farmers are still among the most efficient in the world. There is no mechanism for tiding them over financially or socially when crises hit. This Government is at fault in this area. Adjustment programs are built around debt refinancing, provided that equity and ability to pay are apparent. The problem with people who moved, as the Whitlam Government forced some farmers to do, into one industry, such as the wheat industry, is that they have nothing to fall back on. There is no gearing of adjustment assistance to cope with individual needs, nor is current assistance an effective solution. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) promised last year that no Australian industry would be allowed to suffer unduly because of the international trade crisis. I ask the Minister: What is being done for the wheat industry? The citrus industry has been given some help through the dumping protection which has been introduced, but it is advantaged through being mainly tied to the domestic market. Export industries need alternative measures. This cycle of boom and bust has been a feature of the rural scene for many years. It is mainly due to the vagaries of the international markets when subject to stresses of either acts of God or financial problems. It is hitting harder now that Australia has deregulated its financial markets and exposed us to the unprotected pressures of the international scene. Australia can now be manipulated by the large financial institutions. It is too small to provide its own market buffers, too small for free market forces to reach an equilibrium, and too small to resist market and financial manipulation. We must provide some regulatory barriers between our internal economy and that of the international scene if we are not to be bankrupted and then bought out for a song. Senator Walsh —Who wrote this rubbish? A fairy told you that, did it? A fairy at the bottom of the garden! Senator VIGOR —This Government must take action, Senator Walsh. Australian farmers and exporters cannot continue to carry the can for the Government's inaction and for the Government's inability to manage the economy. Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.18) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report for 1985-86 of the Fishing Industry Research Committee of the Department of Primary Industry is one of the most interesting reports to come before the Senate. It is unfortunate that the Senate has a brief half hour to discuss reports which are tabled each day. I do not think we can do justice to many of the reports that come before the Senate. I believe this report is an example. I would certainly like to have more time and information to be able to speak with expertise on the report. However, that is not to be. I am very interested in the important work for Australia which this Committee carries out and which benefits not only the fishing industry but also consumers. When one looks at the very comprehensive report that this hard-working Committee has produced, and which deserves note and commendation, one sees that various authorities around Australia have been used by the Fishing Industry Research Committee to carry out various items of research. It appears to me that over the last two years, this year and going into the next year there have been some 346 inquiries and projects. The Committee has carried out or is carrying out various projects of considerable size. The work that has been done, and the reports that have been brought out, are of considerable value to the industry and the consumer. I say that they are of value to the consumer because many of the inquiries that the Committee has carried out relate to diseases that can affect the consumer. Of considerable interest to me was the study carried out on ciguatera. Ciguatera occurs as the result of a poison. I have taken some interest in this because people in the north have been affected by this poison, that is, by eating fish affected by ciguatera. I think the first person noted as having caught this disease was one of Captain Cook's crew in Hawaii in the 1700s. One of the first fatalities from the disease, which occurred off the coast of the Northern Territory, involved one of Captain Cook's crew. Since then there has been regular reporting of this disease. Ciguatera is a poisoning caused by eating ciguatoxic fish. It commonly occurs in Queensland but it also occurs in the Northern Territory, particularly around Nhulunbuy. The illness can require considerable convalescence. I am very pleased to see that this work is being carried out because many cases have been reported in and around Nhulunbuy. I remember that the local doctor was seriously affected and, of course, the Aboriginal people have been too, from eating fish affected by ciguatera. As I understand it, ciguatera occurs when fish eat a growth that grows on coral when the coral has been shattered. It is passed on from one fish to another and the effect is cumulative. My five minutes is now almost expended. One could speak on this report for hours. I commend the Committee for the work that it is doing. In particular, I commend Dr Bottrill, who was the technical adviser and who has recently been replaced by Dr M. H. Walker. I came to know Dr Walker for his service to the industry when he gave advice to Australia on joint venture projects in the north. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.23) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board is an historic one in that it provides for the first time a review of the first 10 years of the operation of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act, which has been a remarkably successful Act in terms of providing assistance, additional capital, start-up capital and program support to enhance Australia's industrial and economic competitiveness. As the report indicates, this scheme is being largely overtaken in many of its respects by the introduction of the Government's 150 per cent assistance by way of taxation concession for industrial research and development in Australia. That legislation was passed through the Parliament with the support of all parties. I am glad to say that on preliminary indications it has been remarkably successful, and I believe it has been a contributing factor to the overall improvement in Australia's research profile in industrial research and development in the course of the last couple of years. In terms of what it has to say about the activities for the 1985-86 year on which it reports, the report indicates that there has been a decline in expenditure under this Act, a decline in the number of grants provided and, further, a decline even in the number of applications because people have seen the use of the grants for industry research and development scheme and the 150 per cent taxation concession scheme as a more effective method of operation. What is interesting is appendix 7 to the report in which details are given of all of the public interest agreements that have been entered into under the Act. It draws attention to one area in which Australia is having enormous success and in which it will continue to have success as an exporting country. I refer to the provision of assistance with mechanical aids to overcome the problems of deafness. As everybody knows, the development of the bionic ear has been one of the great achievements of Australian medical research technology. The grant made in this last year to the multi-channel electrotactile speech perception unit is again an indication of continuing pioneering work in that area. I note that on 15 April the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, put out a Press release indicating the support being given for this device, which is quaintly known as the tickle talker and which allows people to hear through their fingers rather than through their ears when there are major problems in terms of disease or in terms of the problems of the profoundly deaf. The report also indicates that assistance has been given to the development of fibre optic sensors, something which in the communications field will also be a matter of very great export potential for Australia. There is also the development of a human growth hormone, which is again a genetic engineering breakthrough undertaken by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, the Garvan Research Laboratory and the University of New South Wales. There are also projects related to very large scale integration software designs. Assistance to research and development has come a long way in the last couple of years. The policies put in place by the previous Government and continued, and in some ways expanded, by this Government need to be seen as having played a major part in that. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that, although we spend a fair amount of money in support of research and development, a heading in the January 1987 American publication `Research and Development' states `$125 billion for research and development in the United States of America in 1987'. The Americans have always understood that, unless a country is prepared to invest large sums of money in research and development, it will not get the economic returns that its intellectual achievement entitles it to get. I commend the Board on its report for 1985-86 and I commend those who over the course of the last 10 years have played a major role in stimulating and assisting the development of Australian research and development, and in particular its application to the industry and export sectors. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.28) —I wish to discuss the report of the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board because I regard it as a most valuable report. As Senator Puplick has just pointed out, it is the final report of this organisation before it goes out of existence. It has had some 10 years of activity, having been instituted by the Fraser Government and continued by an Act of Parliament in 1981, again by the Fraser Government. The present Government has now changed the system, as Senator Puplick has pointed out, to one of tax deductibility. The Liberal Party of Australia supports the moves that have occurred in the extension of tax deductibility for research and development because we feel that that is a more effective and more efficient method of handling the kinds of grants that are necessary in this area. That is not to say that this body, the subject of this report, has not achieved good work in the past, as was suggested by Senator Puplick in his remarks. In fact, page 3 of the report shows that the value of grants give to industry under the various schemes total, in today's dollar value, some $600m-a very worthwhile contribution by the Government towards the expansion of industrial research and development in this country. Quite clearly, the industrial future of Australia relies very heavily not only on competitive factors, which this Government is doing its best to destroy, but on the adaptation of research and development into marketing of new products, ideas and services that can be put on the world market to try to improve our balance of payments, which are so disastrous at present. It is, of course, Liberal Party policy to continue to ensure that adequate funds are made available for research and development and, consequently, we generally support the incentives that are provided through the tax system. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 28 April, on motion by Senator Bolkus: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HILL(South Australia)(5.31) —It was last April that I moved that certain matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, namely, that it consider the role of Parliament in relation to the Ministerial Council for the Companies and Securities Commission and the National Companies and Securities Commission, and also the role of Parliament in relation to the operation and effectiveness of companies and securities legislation. As a principal instigator of the project, it appeared to me that for too long senators from all sides of the chamber had voiced frustration and irritation at the inherent inadequacies of what we refer to as the co-operative companies scheme. It seemed that it was time for the Senate once again to look at the question whether there was not a better alternative. That, of course, is in the historical context of the Senate taking the lead in that area of the law over many years. We need to reflect only on the enormously valuable work previously done by the Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, which was chaired by our friend and former colleague Peter Rae. The frustrations of the current scheme are well known, and I shall refer to them briefly. Firstly, under the scheme there is no proper parliamentary accountability. The Federal Parliament is unable to meet its constitutional responsibilities for Bills that are introduced into the Parliament, and particularly into this chamber. In practical terms, there is no power either to instigate legislation or to amend legislation. In no other area has the Senate had to demean itself by rubber stamping into law something that is, in effect, determined by a committee-in this instance, that being the Ministerial Council. The second area of frustration and concern is that, under the scheme, there is a lack of proper ministerial responsibility. Ministers in this place have been able to excuse themselves from responsibility on the correct assertion that it is not their responsibility but the responsibility of the Ministerial Council, which consists of a Minister of this Parliament plus Ministers from each of the States. Therefore, with no one Minister responsible for a Bill, it follows that the whole process of ministerial responsibility cannot be met. Thirdly, we have witnessed continued examples of poor drafting, sloppy drafting and, in some cases, even meaningless provisions. That could certainly be corrected had the Senate the power to amend, but with the inability of the Senate to do so, that has resulted in an obviously intolerable situation. Fourthly, there is a problem with the exposure draft procedure, which has been developed to compensate for the lack of power to amend. In effect, it has meant that committees have considered the recommendations made by business and community groups, accepted some of them and rejected others without reasons being given; and all behind closed doors. That clearly and obviously is a second best option to a Parliament-or in this case, the Senate-debating amendments in open forum and giving an opportunity for the public to see why particular courses of action are adopted. Fifthly, the Senate will be aware of the administrative inadequacies of the scheme, especially through the starving of funds to the NCSC. Again, no one body is responsible for the administering mechanism. Sixthly, constant criticism has been put before the Committee of different practices in the application of the law because the States' corporate affairs commissions adopt different practices. Examples were put before the Committee of unnecessary duplication and general frustration for the business, legal and accounting communities that must work under that legislative regime. Frustrations have been voiced not only in the Senate, but by the business community as a whole. The Senate will be aware of continuing criticisms by academics, and even by some State governments in recent times, that have recognised the shortcomings of the existing system. It was, therefore, time for a review, and I believe that the report is a milestone in the development of corporate law reform in this country. Its importance lies in the fact that a committee of the Senate, representing both sides of Australian politics, considered all the evidence and unanimously concluded that it is time for a national corporate law. As the Senate is well aware, the process of reform in Australia is more often one of evolution, and that is what has gradually occurred. We know that the history of company law originated in British law. We then had separate company law in each of our States, which obviously led to inconsistencies. More often than not, businesses began to be run on a national basis. Therefore, there was a need for uniform companies law in the States, and efforts were made to develop a uniform scheme. That was an improvement, but it still had shortcomings. From there, through the tortuous process of the previous committee to which I referred, we eventually reached a co-operative scheme. The process of evolution continued, and we have now arrived at the current position. First, we have the shortcomings that I mentioned and, secondly, a growing awareness not only of the national nature of business-and the single market-place was continually referred to us-the complexity of business, the greater profit lines and the ever increasing numbers of advisers, so prevalent in nationally-based businesses, but also, as was stressed to us, an awareness that there was a growing international nature to Australian business, with a need for Australian corporate law to adapt and respond to that and be reformed efficiently and, when necessary, rapidly. Therefore, there is a changing nature to the business environment in which the law must operate. Thirdly, and most significantly, we have found as the years have gone by that principal legal advisers have become much more confident that the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to cover the field. The Committee was assisted by the most valuable report of Sir Maurice Byers to that effect. So it seems to the Committee that the co-operative scheme has now outlived its usefulness, and it is time to help the evolutionary process by the Commonwealth taking the next logical step, and that is a Commonwealth scheme. I am pleased that in the 24 hours since the report has been tabled it has been positively received by the business community. I hope now to see a recognition by the States that the recommendations of the report are in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Obviously, I would like to see a move to the Commonwealth with the support of the States. There may well be a role for the States in administration, perhaps as agents of the Commonwealth. In other words, I am sure that an arrangement with the States, with goodwill on both sides, can be negotiated. This report will not end the process of reform in this area. As in other areas reform will continue. In passing I mention that worthwhile suggestions were put to the Committee that could be considered in another context-moves to plain English drafting and perhaps dividing the NCSC into its various functions. In conclusion, I thank my colleagues for their co-operation during the hearings. I thank those who made submissions and appeared before the Committee. I particularly thank the Secretary of the Committee and its staff for their excellent work in assisting the Committee. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(5.42) —The report by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled `The Role of Parliament in Relation to the National Companies Scheme' has received general approbation throughout the community-and so it should. It deals with a matter about which something now has to be done, that is, the growth of worldwide business, if you like, which is mainly dealt with by companies. It also deals with the exchange of securities, which again is becoming worldwide. There is more and more pressure for a central scheme to operate and for it to be controlled by one body. The report recommends that the body be the Commonwealth Parliament. It may reasonably be said that that is the majority opinion. Senator Hill needs to be congratulated because he was the one, I think, who suggested that the matter be referred from the Senate to the Committee. While I am in the field of congratulations, I congratulate Senator Bolkus, who has now assumed the chairmanship of the Committee, taking over from Senator Tate, who filled the chair most splendidly. I am sure that Senator Bolkus will follow in that line. Looking across at Senator Puplick I say that, although Senator Hill and Senator Bolkus have both given great service to this report and to the Senate, they were during a considerable amount of the time that was spent on this report doing their duty before the United Nations. Looking at the record on this reference, the two people who stood like rocks and brought their considerable minds to bear on the whole matter were Senator Puplick and me. A paper by the Hon. James Kennan, the Attorney-General of Victoria who was the Chairman of the Ministerial Council for the Companies and Securities Commission for a significant period and who generously gave evidence before the Committee, is included in the report. It should be said that the Ministerial Council has served company schemes throughout Australia well. It has been-I hope this is how it will be considered in future times-a very necessary step towards the goal which I hope will be attained following this report of having a national scheme set up and legislated for through this Parliament. I want to set down the Committee's enthusiasm-I think this would be the feeling of all Committee members-for the fact that the Ministerial Council stepped in at a time when company regulations and the regulation of securities were very much in need of a national body. The Ministerial Council performed that function on a co-operative basis. Although it filled that role very well, its time has now perhaps gone. As I say, I hope that new legislation will be put through this Parliament to set up a national scheme. It is sure to get the co-operation of everybody here. Australia would then take its place in the world of security exchanges by bodies which operate more and more on an international basis rather than on a national basis. The stock exchange is the prime example of that. I join Senator Hill in thanking the staff of the Committee and commend the report to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(5.46) —The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled `The Role of Parliament in Relation to the National Companies Scheme' is, as previous speakers have said, the result of considerable concern, expressed in debates in this place in particular, over the years that the parliamentary process could not come to bear on legislation that was presented from time to time under the co-operative scheme. In reviewing almost every piece of legislation that came in one noted the frustration of members of all political parties in not being able to deal with the legislation in any sensible way. It is almost as though the House of Representatives and the Senate ended up performing merely a rubber stamping exercise in which everybody expressed his support for the legislation on the grounds that if one managed to get all the States and the Commonwealth to agree on any item, no matter what it was, the legislation must go through merely on the basis that to have them all agreeing was an historic coincidence in itself and hence one would not feel like standing in the way. One notes, on a more serious level, the considerable support for the legislation. If it had been any other piece of legislation, amendments to much of it would have been carried as it went through. Frustration has been echoed by Senator Gareth Evans and Senator Durack, and Senator Jack Evans when he was here, amongst others, with the intractable process of dealing with legislation in this way. Reading the report, I was particularly interested in the opinions of Sir Maurice Byers with regard to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth to deal with corporations. I felt quite vindicated by his opinions. I am going to send an autographed copy of this report to Mr Cohen, with whom I have been having a running battle for over 18 months over his insistence that the Commonwealth has no powers to deal with, for example, mining on Moreton Island other than the Customs power. I was enlightened by page 69 of the report that the Attorney-General, Mr Bowen, had asserted quite unequivocally in the House of Representatives-obviously in the absence of Mr Cohen or he would have acknowledged it, I am quite sure-on 18 February this year that the Commonwealth does have the power. I felt quite happy about that in a context quite apart from this matter. Senator Puplick —We are only here to be helpful. Senator MACKLIN —I thank the honourable senator. I had been asserting for quite some time that I did not think anybody who had ever looked at this matter had ever contended that the Commonwealth did not have the power, except Mr Cohen. He had disputed the matter with me not only by way of letter but also by way of what we do in this place, that is, talk to one another through Press releases, which got more and more vitriolic as time went on. Let me return to the subject matter of this report. Having accepted the general view that was expressed in the appendices in the opinion of Sir Maurice Byers that in fact the Commonwealth has this power, except in that very limited area of those non-profit recreational activities, which in the report I think are called non-trading and non-financial aspects of non-trading and non-financial companies, and putting aside what a non-financial company might be, fairly obviously to all intents and purposes the Commonwealth's power is sufficiently large and extensive to deal adequately with all the major matters that need to be dealt with, and indeed, as the Committee suggests, the reference of powers from the States in those other areas is probably a foregone conclusion. As Senator Hill has said, I think the time has now come. I did note the interjections of Senator Georges that that is what the Whitlam Government tried to do in 1974 but was not able to do because of the lack of numbers in this place. That might have been premature at that time but it certainly is not premature now. Senator Messner —It was not the only obstacle, though, was it? Senator MACKLIN —It was not the only obstacle at that time. What I want to say is that I think 1987 actually is an appropriate time. A lot of things have changed since 1974, such as the development of company law and the development of stock exchange operations. The understanding of the whole operation of business in Australia has changed enormously in that time. I believe that this is now the correct stance to take; a stance certainly which I very strongly support and a stance which I hope will see fruition in the not too distant future in some type of legislation. We may still be dealing with some residual operations of States rights. Political events of recent days might add fuel to that fire. I believe that the constitutional role of the Commonwealth, as was set down by the founding fathers, is very clear that this is a matter for the Commonwealth of Australia. I believe that we need to move and to move resolutely to that point, not only for the resolution of an enormous number of difficulties here in Australia but more importantly in terms of the role of our companies as they move overseas, and the role of this Government in trying to come to a sensible resolution of the operations of multinational companies. That is an enormous task which in fact in recent years has been the subject of a range of international conferences. Even unitary governments have found enormous difficulties in dealing with those multinational companies. How much more difficult it is in the fragmented nature with which we have had to deal with them. In fact we have been almost powerless in dealing with the operations of those particular corporate entities. I believe that a Commonwealth government, under any political party, would be in a far better position to deal with those companies and to deal with them effectively in the interests of this country than the way we have been able to do up to this point, if the conclusions of the Committee are accepted. I conclude on the note that I understand that this is Senator Bolkus's first report as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. If I am able to agree so wholeheartedly with subsequent reports that come down I will be very pleased. But I also note that that Committee has had a fairly, shall I say, astonishing record in that I think all except one of its reports have been accepted on a bipartisan or tripartisan basis across the board. I think that is an exceptional record for a committee which has dealt with very contentious issues. I think that the reason for that is that it is being chaired by some eminent people who have attempted to move beyond the very straining demands of party political operations and who have sought to come up with a resolution of difficult topics in a way that has been accepted by all political parties. I would therefore like to add my appreciation of this Committee's record in the past and of its work that it has done on this particular occasion, with what I think is another excellent report, a report which I think bears out the need for a vigorous and extensive committee operation of this House. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(5.55) —The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled `The Role of Parliament in Relation to the National Companies Scheme' provides the opportunity to reflect upon the growing relevance, or I should say the growing irrelevance, of a lot of our assumptions about federalism in Australia when it comes to questions of economic management. There is no doubt that in some areas the principles of federalism and the protection of the rights of the States are matters of very great importance. In particular the rights of the States, where they touch upon the welfare of the people of those States and where it is necessary to maintain the direct link between the electorate and the decisions taken by the State governments, are very important. Nevertheless, in the fields of economic management with which the report deals it is quite apparent that we have passed beyond the stage where a federalist solution is any longer a viable solution for Australia. Chapter 3 of the report has the sub-heading `Global Market', and it deals with the development of the Australian economy. It deals with the growing maturity of institutions, such as the formation of the Australian stock exchange. It draws attention to the internationalisation of business, particularly in the securities industry, and it makes it quite clear that in fact the regulation of company law in Australia is required to take more and more cognisance of the development of a national economy in Australia and Australia's integration into an international economy. Indeed we see seminars held these days on international trade law and on international securities law, and we know the need for co-operation between national governments in areas regulating international economic activity. There is no doubt in my mind that the Parliament should now move to enact national companies legislation. That is not to say that there will be no role at all for the States or indeed that the States are not right to be concerned about a number of their operations. For instance, it would be wrong unilaterally to deprive the States of the $50m or so which they gather in terms of the fees imposed for company registration in the individual States. That has been a matter of some very considerable concern to the States. It seems to be that there is no difficulty in protecting a situation where in fact the actual process of the registration of companies can still take place with the State corporate affairs commissions or whatever designated authority each State has, and the States have access to the licence fees and the registration fees which are derived therefrom. I do not believe that we will see the disappearance of the corporate affairs commissions in each State. I believe they will eventually develop into agents for the National Companies and Securities Commission so that people will be able to maintain a fairly close relationship with those organisations in each State. Nevertheless I believe that the legislation which underpins this and the legislation which they are enforcing or operating can be passed by the Commonwealth Parliament after necessary debate and amendment, without the shackles of the existing scheme. One thing that was of interest to me, which is discussed in paragraphs 3.27 and 3.28 of the report, was the different views that people took about what would happen if a piece of legislation under this scheme came into the Commonwealth Parliament and the Parliament unilaterally amended it. For instance, Mr A. D. Smith, the Western Australian Commissioner for Corporate Affairs, said to the Committee in effect that it would be up to the States themselves to pass legislation denying the validity of the Commonwealth amendment if that had been introduced unilaterally; whereas Mr Leigh Masel, who had been the founding Chairman of the NCSC, took the view that the legislation would be invalid unless the prior consent of the Ministerial Council had been obtained. So here we have a former Chairman of the NCSC and a Corporate Affairs Commissioner in one of the States having a different view about what would be the effect of the law if the Commonwealth Parliament moved to make a unilateral amendment of the legislation. As the only non-lawyer on the Committee, the one thing that almost frightened me into taking a different position was when the evidence was put before us that said that the previous Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, QC, his successor, Senator Gareth Evans, QC, his successor, Mr Lionel Bowen, and his soon to be successor, Mr John Spender, QC, were all in complete agreement on this particular matter. When I looked at the fact that there were four Queen's Counsel of that eminence all at one on the particular matter, I really started to worry. Nevertheless, as Senator Cooney has indicated, the fact that-if he will pardon the friendly expression-a good old hack lawyer like Senator Cooney was also in agreement persuaded me that there must be the necessary degree of common sense and that in fact one could accept that there was some validity in the proposition. It was also encouraging to see the response given last night on a television program by Mr Terry Sheahan, the Attorney-General in New South Wales and the current Chairman of the Ministerial Council. He said that the New South Wales Government was perfectly happy with this recommendation and the sooner the Commonwealth got on and enacted uniform national companies legislation the better it would be. I think that the prospect does exist of the States being persuaded to agree to co-operate in this process. Senator Georges, as Senator Macklin indicated, claimed by way of interjection that all this was said in 1974. Indeed it was, but I do not believe that it would have been possible-indeed, it was not possible-nor do I think it would have been wise at the time to have moved in 1974 straight into this situation. The experiment-and that is what it has been-of the Ministerial Council allowed many of the problems to be ironed out and much development to have taken place in terms of integrating State legislation. I think it has laid the foundation, the groundwork, for us now moving to a national system of company law which the States would be prepared to accept. The other thing I want to say about State Attorneys-General is that I was very impressed with the willingness of Mr Kennan, the Attorney-General in Victoria, and Mr Sumner, the Attorney-General in South Australia, to come as witnesses before the Committee and to give us the benefit not only of their State governments' views but also of their personal experience as the responsible State Ministers who have had to make the scheme operate. It is a very great advance for the Senate committee system that senior Ministers of the Crown in the various States are prepared to come before the Committee and participate, in effect, in the Committee's discussions and to participate in the exchange of ideas so that this is not done at arm's length with the State authorities when they are so intimately involved. I conclude by paying tribute also to Senator Bolkus as Chairman of the Committee. He took over, in the course of the Committee's work on this particular matter, from Senator Tate. This hearing was handled in a very relaxed and expeditious way. It is also necessary to place on record considerable thanks to the staff of the Senate Committee. This was a very difficult research project in some respects, particularly the extent to which the lawyers with the Committee staff were required to get into much economic detail and into much debate on an area perhaps not of their own speciality. Sue Gibb and the other members of the Committee secretariat and research staff did a very powerful job in providing a report which, although fairly brief, is nevertheless succinct. Its recommendation is a short recommendation, probably just about as short a recommendation as one has ever seen in a Senate committee report. It is quite simply that the Commonwealth Parliament should enact comprehensive legislation covering the field currently regulated by the co-operative scheme. I hope that that will be possible and I hope that that recommendation will attract support from all of the parties in the Parliament and can be acted upon as quickly as possible. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(6.06) —There is complete tripartite support for the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the role of parliament in relation to the national companies scheme. I hope that the report foreshadows far-reaching reforms in both Australian and international regulation of corporate responsibility. This Parliament is too often too late in taking account of fast changing technologies. This report draws the attention of the Parliament to the revolutionary changes in the business environment which have been caused by the advances in information and communication technology. This accelerating internationalism was highlighted by Mr Henry Bosch, the Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commis- sion, in last year's annual report when he pointed out: Flows of information and funds have become almost instantaneous, and (world) financial markets are becoming increasingly interdependent. It was the recognition of Australia as one market in the global market which led to the recent amalgamation of the six State stock exchanges to form the Australian Stock Exchange Ltd. Delocalisation is possible within one organisation and, as Senator Puplick has said, there is no reason why we should centralise because we have uniform legislation. Modern technology will allow us to have proper delocalisation. This report underlines the globalisation of business and the need for Australia to rationalise and unify our companies and securities laws in order to support Australian business within the international context. While Australia continues to manage its business under six different State administrations, we have no way of negotiating international agreements on equal terms with other countries. Unwieldy constraints on reforms arise from the need to rely on infrequent meetings of Ministers from all the States and the Commonwealth in order to get this agreement. Administrative duplication between the National Companies and Securities Commission and the various State corporate affairs commission and the administrative differences in enforcing the legislation between States also make the current situation very messy and inefficient. It is little wonder that Australia, with such a messy local system of regulation of corporate behaviour, cannot cope with ensuring good corporate behaviour by large international companies which operate within Australia. Transfer pricing and the use of tax havens are major tax rorts which are routinely used by international companies to avoid their Australian corporate citizenship obligations. These tax rorts are so unpoliced, so ungoverned, that Australia is considered fair game for such shenanigans in all international business circles. Until we learn to insist that corporations operating in and out of Australia observe the responsibilities of Australian citizens and contribute fairly to the management of the infrastructure that Australia provides for their business activities, we can expect no better from them. People in corporations will do what they are expected to do. The first step is to get our act together nationally, to streamline our companies and securities legislation and to give adequate support to the National Companies and Securities Commission so that our regulations are enforceable and enforced. This report sets out the means whereby this is possible. It points out that the constitutional powers do exist for both national and international management of corporate affairs by the Commonwealth of Australia. It also underlines the inefficiencies and the undemocratic nature of the current agreement between States and the Commonwealth in these matters. Australia is a very small cog in the international big wheels of finance and trade. But the problems experienced by Australia are the same as those experienced by nearly all national governments in attempting to control corporations which operate outside the constraints of national legislation and whose turnovers are in some cases very much greater than those of the States in which they have host operations. Currently, both the United Nations and signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are trying to find ways of negotiating international treaties to control some of the worst excesses of multinational corporations. Some of the most glaring injustices, which arise because there are no internationally enforceable legal constraints on such enterprises, have been brought to the notice of this parliament in previous speeches. It is important that the Commonwealth Government be in a position to undertake local regulation of corporations efficiently and effectively and that it be empowered, under the external powers of the Constitution, to negotiate such treaties on Australia's behalf. The report also points out the incongruity of the undemocratic way in which the Ministerial Council governs Australia's corporate activities. The Ministerial Council, under the agreement between the States and the Commonwealth, is the final arbiter and the final authority over legislation to regulate corporate activities. Yet this same Ministerial Council, unfettered by accountability to Parliament, is made up of continually changing members because of the high turnover of Ministers in each of the Australian governments. It should be pointed out that those same Ministers are chosen not by parliament but by the State Premiers and the Federal Prime Minister unilaterally. This system lacks most of the normal democratic checks and balances and leaves corporate regulation vulnerable to corporate pressure. There are considerably fewer corporate pressure points. We have only to look at the present Government's vulnerability to such corporate and media pressure to realise how important it is to maintain final accountability within the Parliament. Ministers are fallible. This is one of the major problems. What is worse, perhaps, is the vulnerability of the Ministerial Council to manipulation by bureaucratic pressure. I quote Mr Kennan, the Victorian Attorney-General and a member of the Ministerial Council, who said in October 1985: The complex nature of the business to be conducted by the Ministerial Council and the relatively high turnover of Ministers has meant that the Ministerial Council is singularly vulnerable to the Yes Minister process. The Ministerial Council has had a wide range of powers. The NCSC must obey the directions of the Council; the NCSC must report on performance and policy as required by the Council; the Council nominates and effectively employs people for appointment to the NCSC; the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee is advisory only to the Council; and all regulations under the Act must be consistent with resolutions of the Council, which thus has power of veto over legislative action of even the Federal Parliament. The linchpin of democracy is accountability of our important institutions to the people. The present agreement leaves the Ministerial Council unaccountable and the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. When the Council is pressured through both the corporations it is attempting to regulate and the Public Service it employs to assist it, with no final accountability to the people, its position is intolerable. When Australia's ability to negotiate with world corporate powers and with the nations of the world is bogged down by legal and administrative inefficiency because of archaic concepts of state supremacy over business, our pretensions to national independence seem laughable. This is why I commend the report totally to the Senate. There are a few things I would like to see included in the new legislation. We need ways of stopping the manipulation of corporate ownership through nominee companies; we need ways of stripping the corporate veil. It is time to take a step into the real world and to grasp the realities of new technologies. It is time to recognise the global market of world finance and trade and to legislate for good corporate citizenship and responsibility, both nationally and internationally. I believe this report leads us in the right direction. I commend Senator Bolkus and all members of the Committee for their excellent work in this area. I commend the report to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Debate resumed from 1 April, on motion by Senator Robertson: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(6.15) —The situation has not changed since I last spoke to this report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The matter is still before the Standing Orders Committee. Once again, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 7 May 1986, on motion by Senator Reid: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.16) —I move an amendment to the motion to take note of the report as follows: At the end of the motion, add: ``, and the Senate agrees with the Committee's recommendations''. The Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House recommended in this report, which was presented in November 1985, that legislation be passed to delineate the precincts of the new Parliament House for the purpose of making particular statutory provisions in relation to the precincts. The Committee is not under the illusion, which confuses a great many people, that the parliamentary precincts have any special status in law or that the ordinary law does not apply in the precincts. This matter has been the subject of consideration by the Senate over a number of years. In particular, I refer to the interest displayed by former Senator Reg Wright from Tasmania. The Committee considers, however, that a statute is necessary to delineate the precincts and to make it clear beyond any doubt that the Presiding Officers have the management and control of the buildings in the precincts on behalf of the Parliament and on behalf of the Commonwealth; that the police are obliged to remove persons from the precincts at the direction of the Presiding Officers; that the Crown should initiate prosecutions at the request of the Presiding Officers for any offences committed in the precincts; and that particular laws apply in the precincts where there is some doubt as to their application. The Committee has recommended that the whole of the area enclosed by Capital Circle be the parliamentary precincts. It appears, and this is referred to in the Committee's report, that the Government, at least in the past, has taken the view that the parliamentary precincts should be restricted to the area of the building actually used by the two Houses, and should not include the parts of the building allocated to the Government, so that the Government would have exclusive control over the Government area. I consider this to be an outrageous suggestion which ought to be resisted by the Parliament, and that is partly why I have moved my amendment. By custom, a large part of the present Parliament House has been set aside for the use of the executive government. This allows Ministers the convenience of having offices and staff close to the two Houses. It has the severe disadvantage that the area occupied by the Executive tends to expand as Ministers make demands for more and more space, and the private members of Parliament, in relation to accommodation, tend to become the poor relations in the building which is supposed to be for the use of the Parliament. This practice of allowing the Executive to occupy a large part of the legislative building is peculiar to Australia. Other parliaments do not allow Ministers to have their principal offices in the legislative building. Unfortunately, this practice of giving the Executive a large part of Parliament House has been continued in the new building and, in fact, in the course of construction of the building, the Executive has expanded the area occupied by it so that it now intrudes into the central area of the building. Having gained the occupancy of a large part of the new building, it is quite outrageous for the Government to claim exclusive control over parts of what is meant to be Parliament House. The two Houses should insist that the whole of the new building and its surrounding area be administered and controlled by the Presiding Officers on behalf of the Parliament. The other reason for this amendment is that there now appears to be some resistance in the Public Service to the idea of providing for the precincts by legislation. Following the report of the Joint Committee, former President McClelland had a Bill drafted by one of the Senate's consultant draftsmen to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. The Bill was sent to the Prime Minister for consideration, and to all members of the Committee. There has still been no response by the Government to the proposed Bill. It is suspected that this is because of resistance in the Public Service to the idea of formally declaring the customary powers of the Presiding Officers in relation to Parliament House. The bureaucracy would perhaps prefer to leave those powers undefined and uncertain so that they could be encroached upon in the future. By passing this amendment the Senate will support the Joint Committee and indicate its belief that the two Houses, through their Presiding Officers, should have responsibility for controlling and managing the new Parliament House. Senator Robertson —Hear, hear! Senator JESSOP —I note Senator Robertson's acknowledgment. This bone of contention has existed for a long time where the Executive has exerted too much influence over the Parliament itself. After all, constitutionally the Executive Government is the instrument of the Parliament. Members of Parliament are supreme to the Executive. I hope this amendment will attract the support of the whole of the Senate because in this way we can demonstrate our interest and our recognition that the control of the Parliament and its precincts ought to be fairly and squarely in the hands of the Presiding Officers. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State)(6.21) —What I intended to say-in deference to Senator Jessop because I know he has taken a very real interest in a matter of great importance to parliamentarians, namely, who should control the Parliament and its precincts-is that I nevertheless think it would be premature for the Senate to make any determination on the amendment which he has proposed. We should particularly await the reaction and advice of the Presiding Officers, who obviously have a very prominent role in the scheme envisaged by Senator Jessop and also, I take it, from the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House, the report to which he refers. On that basis, I would have thought that the debate should now be adjourned. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned: Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered, General Business, Order of the Day relating to the consideration of Committee reports pursuant to Sessional Order, be not further proceeded with this day. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Special Minister of State) —On behalf of Senator Gietzelt I seek leave to give notice of a motion relating to the parliamentary zone. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, Senator Gietzelt shall move: That in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House presented to the Senate on 2 April 1987, namely: (a) installation of standard high intensity lighting at the seven marked pedestrian crossings within the Parliamentary Zone; (b) construction of an additional carpark and the provision of carpark lighting at the National Library of Australia on the basis that this carpark is designated as short stay parking; (c) construction of the east west roads between Parkes Place and the proposed Mall to give access to the parking areas associated with the National Science and Technology Centre; (d) construction of a road north of King Edward Terrace adjacent to the land axis to provide additional access to the National Science and Technology Centre, and (e) installation of the proposed lighting on the land bridge between the provisional Parliament House and the new Parliament House and on the roads associated with the National Science and Technology Centre. Senator JONES(Queensland) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and Environment, I present a report on technology assessment in Australia, together with the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the reports be printed. Senator JONES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report concludes an inquiry undertaken in fulfilment of terms of reference first given to the Committee on 15 June 1984. On that occasion I said: The effects of technological change on society will be felt more and more in the future. How to go about formulating policies to deal with these effects is the concern that lies behind the proposed inquiry. The current period is one of great potential for technological advancement. New possibilities are emerging in areas such as computing, information technology, communications technology, biotechnology and new materials research. Tertiary institutions are becoming more involved in product development. New government programs, such as the National Industry Extension Service, NIES, and the grants for industrial research and development, GIRD, have been started. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is reorganising its priorities to be more responsive to current industrial needs. There are signs that private business is increasing its investment in industrial research and development. The potential is there. Australians have the expertise, the ability, and the need. But more needs to be done to ensure Australian industry modernises quickly and for the benefit of all Australians. Any process of technology assessment must address this need and must be aware of the issues and approaches being discussed. The Committee saw the new grants for industrial research and development and the National Industry Extension Service as central to establishing a strong Commonwealth technology promotion and assessment capability. We cannot make over-optimistic projections based on past history of technological change, and its relationship with economic growth. In the past, as a particular sector of the economy became more capital intensive and shed labour, the `excess labour' was absorbed in other sectors of the economy. Today's technological revolution is making possible rationalisation of production in the agricultural, manufacturing and service sectors of the economy simultaneously. In the United States, during its recent period of rapid computerisation, the only place people could turn to for new jobs was in relatively servile or poorly paid service employment: The eating and drinking industry, including fast food chains; care of the aged and sick; and building maintenance, cleaning and delivery services. Successful management of social and economic impacts will facilitate a smoother and less costly introduction of new technology. If Australia is unable to deal with large-scale job displacement, with changing impacts on different sectors of the work force, with the effects on income levels as the balance between skilled and unskilled workers changes, and with new health and safety problems, resistance to change will only increase. Considerable costs could be involved in repairing social and economic damage caused by the inappropriate introduction of technology. The Committee received, in submissions and in evidence, a range of proposals. The more substantial of these included, firstly, a Ministry for Technological Development; secondly, a Technological Assessment Board; thirdly, various decentralised technology assessment systems; fourthly, an improved Australian Science and Technology Council Technological Change Committee operation; and, fifthly, technological impact statements. It is impractical to expect that a single central bureaucracy could effectively monitor all technological change affecting employment and working conditions. Industry is based on the use of technology, and obviously no bureaucratic agency can effectively monitor all changes in industry. The Committee therefore has been more interested in mechanisms which required a minimum of additional central bureaucracy, and which could tap into any existing or new processes which could throw light on the effects of technological change. We noted the decision of the ASTEC Technological Change Committee-TCC-not to collect data on an industry by industry basis, and on its lack of direct contact with the work place. The TCC's weaknesses do not reflect upon its own competence, but upon the overall situation in Australia. Three proposals were put to the Committee during its inquiry to remedy the deficiencies in technology assessment. The proposals were technical impact statements, industry databanks and co-ordinated national technology assessment. Given the lack of information sharing currently operating, despite the existence of the National Labour Consultative Council's guidelines on information sharing, it seemed that some form of legal obligation should be required of employers. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has already determined that employers should provide certain information in writing, after a firm decision has been made to introduce new technology. However, the impact of the Arbitration Commission's test case determination has not been widespread. The obligation to provide information on technological changes should be strengthened by legislation. This legislation should specify, along the lines indicated in a technology impact statement, what information should be provided. The legislation could also take into account the size of the enterprise's work force in assessing the need for it to lodge such a statement. Such statements could facilitate genuine consultation and make available the information necessary to analyse current impacts. They should not be required in order for the Government to evaluate whether the proposed technological change can go ahead. The Act could be called the Technological Change (Sharing of Information) Act. There will be opposition, I should imagine, to such measure. To grapple with this problem, an increased educational program will also be necessary. The active promotion by the Government of technological change agreements, which include impact statements, will also be important. An education campaign promoting information sharing is urgent, and in that light the Committee supports the Australian Science and Technology Council's Technological Change Committee recommendation in its report `Computer-related Technology in the Metal Trades Industry' on this issue. It reads: That the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consult with the union movement, employees and employers to produce detailed proposals for the implementation of a voluntary scheme of firm-based consultation between management and workers on the introduction of new and improved technologies. The unions must strengthen their expertise in relation to new technologies. Workers in a particular enterprise usually build up an intimate understanding of the systems they are working with. But they may not necessarily have the expertise to participate, as fully contributing parties, in the planning of new technological systems. It will be necessary for employee organisations to have the necessary expertise to participate fully in improved consultation in the work place. Increased and more widespread consultation, based upon the free and full flow of information, guaranteed by the introductions of technology impact statements, would help fill the gap as regards work place oriented information. If such statements were lodged in a central registry, it would help to produce specific industry based data. The assembly and collection of data on an industry basis is important. The Committee could not make specific detailed recommendations in this regard due to the technical questions involved in ensuring compatibility of data collection and storage methods. The Committee recommends that the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Australian Bureau of Statistics prepare a feasibility study on the proposal for an industry databank. More than just a clearing house is needed for assessment of the general social and economic impacts. It was the Committee's view that a central co-ordinating body should have the following functions: It should be a place of lodgment for the technology impact statements or in-house assessments prepared in the process of management-union consultations; it should be responsible for administering a scheme to fund technology assessment-related projects that trade unions may wish to carry out; it should be involved in promoting understanding of the available models for consultation; it should be able to use this information, as well as information gathered from other sources, to conduct inquiries into any matter related to the identification and management of technological change impacts; it should produce both recommendations to government and publish useful information for the community; it should use public inquiries, in addition to professional expert research; it should analyse data accumulated in the process of consultation and in the course of the work of NIES; it should seek community submissions; and it should encourage community groups to submit requests for inquiries. I emphasise that the Committee is not advocating compulsory inquiries into the proposals of particular firms for technological change. It is advocating more general inquiries into questions relating to the impacts of technological change. The Committee recommends that a Technological Change Council be established, and suggests terms of reference along the following lines: 1. It should maintain a continuing review of the processes and trends in technological change in Australian and elsewhere, and evaluate and report on the direct and indirect effects at the national level, including social, economic and technological effects. The Council should carry out public inquiries as a principal method of evaluation. The Council should have the right to empower its director and senior specialist staff to conduct public hearings. 2. The Council should act as a place of lodgment of technological impact statements produced in the course of management-union consultation at the enterprise level. The Council should utilise the information in these statements, giving due regard to legitimate issues of confidentiality, in conducting its inquiries. 3. The Council should manage a scheme of financial assistance to unions, and community groups, who may wish to carry out technology assessment projects, as a means of improving their ability to contribute to work place, and industry level, consultations. The Council should comprise a broad range of people, representing business, unions, community groups, women's interests, labour market and sociological expertise. They should be part time members. The Council should ensure that women's interests are represented by women. The Committee recommends that the Council be formed by taking the following steps: Removing the Technological Change Committee from the ASTEC framework. The new Council would also report directly to the Prime Minister. Its reports should be presented to the Parliament. Rewriting the TTC's terms of reference along the lines I have just indicated, with the current second clause of its terms of reference being given to ASTEC. Restructuring of its membership in line with the composition I have just outlined above. The current size of the membership need not be expanded. The Committee's evidence indicated that impact-oriented assessment in Australia was most unsatisfactory. This was partly because such assessment work was carried out by institutions whose primary concern was to promote the rapid diffusion of new technologies. It is equally important for Australia to understand the nature of the social and general economic impacts of new technologies. Such cost-benefit assessments should be carried out by a body mandated to do that alone. By ASTEC taking on the technology promotion assessment work, and a restructured TCC becoming an independent council, a new body could be put into place with minimal additional expense or bureaucratic arrangements. The new Council could use part of the existing TCC staff, with few additional staff. There does not seem to be any reason why the two councils-ASTEC and the Technological Change Council-could not share premises. I am confident that the proposed Technological Change Council would be of great benefit to Australia. This benefit can be maximised only if there is an increasing community interest and participation in the consideration of Australia's technological future. Additional public education will also be necessary. The submission from the Commission for the Future noted that there were many sectors of the community affected by new technology which did not make submissions to the Committee's inquiry. These sectors included women, migrants, the Aborigines, older workers, disabled workers and youth. The awareness of technology-related issues within these groups, and the community generally, should be raised. We were therefore interested in the concept of a community education program as proposed by the Commission for the Future. The Committee supports the initiative taken by the Commission for the Future to establish a Clearing House on Future Issues. The major function of CHOFI will be to disseminate information about all major issues which involve the future of work and impact of technological change. The Committee's principal recommendations are: 1. That the Senate review the operation of the grants for industrial research and development, and the National Industry Extension Service, within two years of their commencement; 2. That priority be given to establishing within, or in association with NIES, a clearing house for information material on the potential of new technological applications, and on the various problems faced in ensuring rapid adoption of these technologies; 3. That a Technological Change (Sharing of Information) Act be introduced, requiring the provision of specific categories of information to employees and their unions in the course of consultation over technological change, and that such information also be lodged with a Technological Change Council; 4. That the Government implement the recommendation made by the ASTEC Technological Change Committee `that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations consult with the union movement, employees and employers, to produce detailed proposals for the implementation of a voluntary scheme of firm-based consultation between management and workers on the introduction of new and improved technologies.' The Committee adds the proviso that it believes that the information to be shared during consultations should be defined in legislation, and that the term `workers' should include their unions; 5. That a feasibility study into the establishment of an industry databank be carried out by the Government; 6. That a Technological Change Council be established by restructuring the current ASTEC Technological Change Committee to: (a) carry out specifically impact-oriented assessments; and (b) manage a system of funding assistance to non-government organisations wishing to carry out technology assessments as a part of improving consultation in Australia. The Council should be provided with adequate resources; and 7. The membership of such a Council should ensure the representation of women's interests by women. I would like finally to thank sincerely the staff who worked for the Committee-the secretary and the research officers, including the people who worked as research officers and then left the Committee to work for other committees, and other research officers who came during the time we were undertaking the inquiry. It was only as a result of the work carried out by that staff that we were able to bring down this report within the three-year period. I recommend the report to the Senate. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(6.43) —I have pleasure in supporting the remarks of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment, Senator Jones, and also add my thanks to the staff, under secretary Robert King, for the work done in assisting the Committee to carry out public hearings and eventually to compile this report. During the course of our inquiry the Committee dealt with over 120 witness groups at public hearings and gathered a lot of important evidence from that source. As well as that, we had a number of significant written submissions which we considered in the context of the compilation of this report. The Committee found generally throughout its inquiry that employees are rather apprehensive when technological change is imminent. We believe it is most important that firms throughout Australia contemplating the introduction of new technology should carry out appropriate consultation with the unions concerned and the work force involved in that particular industry prior to the introduction of new technology. We found that there were a few problems associated with that because of the confidentiality of the introduction of new technology. Some firms are a little reluctant to flag their intentions to the opposition, which is understandable. However, having regard to that, we believe that there ought to be a model established whereby firms could consider an appropriate method of consulting with their employees prior to the introduction of technological change. We noted that Telecom Australia had an interesting model that could possibly be adopted in that context. It is natural that employees should be rather apprehensive, particularly if they are ignorant of the changes contemplated. The Committee gathered during the inquiry that the introduction of new technology need not necessarily mean redundancy, but may well require a system of retraining and re-education programs for the employees in order that they might find work in other areas as a result of the introduction of such technology. This is a very important report and it ought to be debated at length. For that reason I will not delay the Senate any longer. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —On behalf of Senator Crowley, I present the sixth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill 1986, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1987, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Bill 1986 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6, dated 29 April 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES(Western Australia) —I present a report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes relating to private hospitals in Australia. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GILES —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. In September 1981, Senator Janine Haines referred to the Senate the activities of private hospitals and nursing homes, bringing to the Senate's attention growing concern in the community about the ownership and operation of private hospitals and nursing homes. As a result, the Senate established the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes and adopted very detailed terms of reference for investigation and report by the Committee. The Committee found that the matters referred by the Senate required an extremely wide inquiry and decided to table separate reports on each section of the inquiry. The report on nursing homes was tabled in the Senate in February 1985. The report I have tabled today is the outcome of the Committee's inquiry into private hospitals in Australia. The Committee intends to conclude its inquiry with a report on discretionary surgery and it is anticipated that this report will be tabled in the Senate in the near future. At its establishment, this was the first all-woman committee of the Senate, chaired initially by Senator Walters. Subsequent re-constitution has been accompanied by enlargement and, fairly recently, the inclusion of Senator Brownhill, taking the place of Senator Bjelke-Petersen. I must pay tribute to the patience and fortitude of Committee members whose contribution to this report has included over 70 meetings as we sought to ensure that rapidly changing circumstances were thoroughly analysed for their relevance to our terms of reference, recalling witnesses as necessary, and substantially revising earlier drafts of the report. Throughout this marathon, the secretariat has supported the Committee with meticulous attention to detail and unfailing efficiency and courtesy. Our first Secretary, Patricia Mayberry, and our first research officer, Penny Moyes, have long gone to other positions but have maintained a welcome interest in our progress. They were replaced by Tim Dodson, who left us only recently and who well deserves much of the credit for the scope and thoroughness of the report. He was ably assisted by Justine Francis and later by Alvaro Marques, who conducted the company searches which have added an important element to the report and who also officiated as Acting Secretary in the final stages. We are happy to welcome Christine MacDonald as our new Secretary for the third and final phase of the inquiry. The Committee, in framing its report on private hospitals, has used information contained in some of the 162 submissions received during the inquiry and the evidence heard from the 142 witnesses who appeared before the Committee. Members of the Committee also visited a cross-section of private hospitals. From these the Committee was able to gain an idea of the range of services and facilities available. The Committee was impressed with the services and care provided in the majority of hospitals visited. As I have already mentioned, the terms of the Committee's inquiry were very wide. Private hospitals in Australia comprise approximately 31 per cent of Australian hospitals and 23 per cent of Australian hospital beds. The Committee has gathered statistics on the number, size, growth and distribution of private hospitals and beds and the provision of services, including specialty services, in the private hospitals. The Committee also reviewed utilisation statistics including occupancy rates and average length of stay. Because of the lack of data only limited comparisons between private and public hospitals have been possible. However, we have been able to identify a number of disturbing trends. These include: A significant rise in the proportion of private hospital beds, from 16.9 per cent of all hospital beds in 1963 to 23 per cent of beds in 1986; a growing concentration of private beds in metropolitan areas; and the falling level of occupancy rates in private hospitals to about 57 per cent-far below acceptable levels, indicating an oversupply of beds and consequent potential waste and overpricing. The Committee reviewed the means of controlling the growth of private hospitals and found that although the responsibility now lies with the States, there is a great variation between the States in the degree and the manner of private hospital regulation. However, we believe that it is increasingly important that the States have full control over the introduction of new hospitals and beds and their location within each State. In most cases State governments are moving in line with the Committee's findings in this regard. Before dealing further with the Committee's findings, I raise a matter of serious concern to the Committee. The Committee found in carrying out its inquiry that there was a lack of adequate and accessible records of a number of matters pertaining to the operation of private hospitals. The Committee was hindered by the lack of records of ownership of hospitals and it also found that there were deficiencies in medical record keeping and a lack of accurate medical data for private hospitals. This not only hindered the Committee's inquiry but also constrains full and proper scrutiny of the private hospital industry by government and by the public and its accountability to those it purports to serve. The Committee has recommended that State governments pass legislation to ensure that ownership details are available and that each State health authority requests each private hospital to provide adequate medical records. The Committee hopes that the State governments will undertake the examination of these recommendations as a matter of urgency. There is a rapidly growing recognition of the fact that an efficient hospital system in Australia, given the acceptance of a well entrenched private sector, is fundamentally dependent upon the integration of the public and private systems. The market-driven philosophy which pervades the dissenting report of Senator Walters and Senator Brownhill-it is held by many other people-cannot be justified in the delivery of health care for many reasons, all of which are canvassed in the report. Health is accepted to be a common good, an imperative, not a discretionary service for which one shops, like a haircut. An unwell individual is the subject, rarely the instigator, of a range of decision about tests, procedures, hospitalisation and so on. The elevation of the virtues of choice to a primary objective is mostly no more than a fallacy; the patient seeks professional advice which is usually not questioned. Analogies with conventional consumer behaviour are simply not legitimate. If further justification is required of the need for accountability of the private hospital industry, despite the cessation of the day bed subsidy previously provided by the Commonwealth Government, it can surely be found in the heavy public investment in the education and training of nurses, technicians and doctors and in research conducted in our universities, public hospitals and institutes. As with the inquiry into nursing homes, the Committee was directed to the issue of ownership of private hospitals. Although the Committee received submissions and evidence expressing a number of concerns about ownership of private hospitals, it found that there was little detailed or comprehensive information available about ownership structures. To clarify this issue, the Committee sent a questionnaire on ownership to all private enterprise hospitals in Australia. Replies were eventually received from all hospitals surveyed. The Committee also carried out a number of company searches to ensure validation of the information received. The Committee's survey showed that the majority of the 190 private enterprise hospitals in Australia were operated by proprietary companies and trusts, New South Wales having the highest proportion of hospitals owned by proprietary companies. In an attempt to gain a clearer picture of company involvement in private hospital ownership, the Committee attempted to ascertain how many companies were shareholders of hospitals. We found that there were a total of 485 companies holding shares in private hospitals and that the number of companies holding shares in each hospital ranged from one to more than 15. Many of these companies did not trade but acted as nominees or trustees for individuals, hospital trusts or family trusts. On making company searches of a sample of hospitals in order to validate the self-reports which constituted our review of the whole industry, it was discovered that there were some inaccuracies and omissions. Perhaps more significantly, we discovered some highly complicated corporate structures of the type which have been associated with schemes to avoid or evade taxation. Constraints of time and resources, added to incomplete and out of date records, prevented the Committee from drawing more than tentative conclusions, but several instances have been drawn to the attention of the Australian Taxation Office and recommendations have been made within the report endorsing the call by Mr Frank Costigan, QC, in interim report No. 5 of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union for a greatly improved system of corporate controls. There was also evidence of the use by companies with shares in private hospitals of tax exempt charities invented for the purpose. Further examination of this phenomenon was hampered by a New South Wales Crown Solicitor's opinion in 1954 which is used as a basis for denying the public any access to the accounts of charities in that State. Another important finding of the survey was the number of companies having interests in more than one hospital. The survey revealed that 36 per cent of hospitals are owned by 18 ownership groups. These ownership groups ranged from foreign owned companies to family concerns and included a significant number of doctors. The terms of reference directed us to examine the financial involvement of medical practitioners and their families in private hospitals. We found that doctors had a direct financial interest in at least 39 per cent of private enterprise hospitals. Further, 93 per cent of doctor investors were still in private practice and 70 per cent of doctor investors referred patients to their own hospitals. Whilst some doctors had interests in only one hospital, the Committee found that some 60 doctors invested in more than one hospital. These investments were sometimes channelled through a complex network of companies and trusts and in at least two cases involved a substantial investment in private nursing homes. The Committee believes that these findings indicate that doctors have a significant financial involvement in private hospitals in Australia. Apart from the Committee's own survey, few investigations have been undertaken into patterns of doctor ownership. However, a study conducted by Professor L. Opit and Dr J. Morley into the ownership patterns in Victorian hospitals and selected hospitals in New South Wales and South Australia revealed a high incidence of doctor involvement in the ownership of private hospitals and some very complex company structures. Although the Committee did not receive any specific evidence of a conflict of interest by medical practitioners with financial equity in private hospitals, it takes the view that it is essential that any medical practitioner who chooses to invest in a private hospital should not be in a position where there is even a potential for abuse. The Committee has therefore recommended that medical practitioners, or their families, be prohibited from having any financial interest in a private hospital. The Committee investigation of ownership also revealed an increasing trend towards corporate ownership. The Committee's interest in this area was twofold: First, to identify the extent of corporate ownership, both foreign and Australian based; and, secondly, to identify the potential effect of the growth of corporate medicine on the provision of health care in Australia. This trend towards corporate ownership has seen the emergence of corporate owned hospital chains-both foreign and local-in the Australian private hospital sector. The rise of the Hospital Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of the Hospital Corporation of America, has been of note. The Hospital Corporation of America is the largest hospital corporation in the world and owns and manages some 420 hospitals world-wide. In 1984, its earnings after tax were $US297m out of a total revenue of $US4.2 billion. The Hospital Corporation of Australia began operations here in 1978 and now owns 13 hospitals. As with all foreign companies in Australia, HCA's entry into the market was reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board. The FIRB instructed HCA to divest 35 per cent of its equity to Australian shareholders by September 1981. But it was not until June 1985 that HCA satisfied this requirement at which time the Australian Industry Development Corporation invested approximately $16m to acquire the 35 per cent Australian shareholding required by the FIRB. We are most concerned about the activities of the AIDC, being a Commonwealth statutory authority, in this regard. There are various reasons why we believe this investment is totally inappropriate for a Commonwealth statutory authority, and I draw the Senate's attention to our recommendation in the report that the AIDC divest itself of the majority of its shareholding in HCA by the end of 1987, and the remainder of its investment by 1990. The Committee has questioned the desirability of allowing foreign owned corporate hospitals into Australia. Approximately 12 per cent of private enterprise hospital beds are now owned by two foreign corporations. We believe that uncontrolled entry of such corporations is contrary to the national interest, it being unlikely that Australia will derive any net economic benefits from such investment. Accordingly, we have recommended that the Treasury prohibit the entry for further foreign owned corporations into the health care industry, that the level of local equity requirements be reviewed and that a limit be placed on the number of private hospital beds under foreign ownership so that these corporations are prevented from obtaining any further equity in the private hospital sector. We are not only concerned with the activities of foreign owned corporations in the Australian health care sector. We are also concerned at the growing trend towards private hospital ownership being concentrated in the hands of a few operators. Recent evidence suggests that there has been a surge in private hospital investment and that some of the private hospital operators have increased their share of the market or are about to add new hospitals to their holdings. Honourable senators are no doubt aware of the recent takeover involving Health and Life Care Ltd which reportedly acquired 21 private hospitals at a cost of $118m from the consolidated health care group, Dr McGoldrick's family company. Health and Life Care will now operate 27 private hospitals, making it the largest private hospital operator in Australia, with 960 beds or 6.5 per cent of the total number of private hospital beds. Unfortunately, so far very little information about these Australian privately owned hospital chains is available, but this may change as more and more private operators prepare to go public. A recent item in the Sydney Morning Herald indicated that the Paul Ramsay Group, which now owns nine hospitals, will float a health care company on the stock exchange in June. Moves such as this confirm the private health care sector as a new boom area in the Australian economy. Developments in the United States of America, and more recently in Australia, of which we have given considerable detail in our report, have shown that there are many disadvantages in this trend towards entrepreneurial medicine. There is a very real danger that medical practice will be determined by the pursuit of profit rather than patient or local needs, that doctors may lose autonomy in decision making in the corporate environment and that medical ethics will be replaced by the corporate ethos. I wish to make one final comment before closing. I have already mentioned that Professor Opit and Dr Morley produced for the inquiry a study of ownership patterns of private hospitals. Professor Opit and Dr Morley also gave evidence to the Committee, which was referred to in its report on nursing homes. That evidence related to the extent of doctor ownership of private hospitals and the trend towards corporate ownership in Australia. During the debate on the earlier report, Senator Walters attacked the credibility of both doctors. The Committee's finding on ownership of private hospitals has substantiated the evidence given to the Committee by both of those doctors and has totally vindicated their position, as any fair reading of our report will demonstrate. Indeed, for reasons that are detailed in the report, it is highly probable that both surveys underestimated ownership by doctors and their families. On the tabling of this report, we find that a crude attempt has been made in a dissenting report to discredit these prestigious and valuable witnesses. Professor Lou Opit and Dr Morley are highly regarded clinicians and academics; quoting them selectively and out of context, as has been done in the dissenting report, is unjust and unworthy. It demonstrates no more than that the authors of the dissenting report are congenitally unable to accept that a potential for conflict is inherent in the delivery of private hospital or other medical services by doctors. All the professional witnesses to the inquiry agreed that this potential exists where doctors have a financial interest other than or in addition to their direct medical services to patients. Most of our witnesses believed that this was undesirable. The majority of the Committee concur. In the short time available to me, I have been able to give the Senate only a brief outline of the Committee's report. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Sidney Sax who was appointed as specialist adviser to the Committee. His assistance and advice during the consideration of the draft report were invaluable. Many of the matters discussed in the report will have important effects on the future structure of the Australian private health sector. I hope that honourable senators will find time in their busy schedules to read the report and consider the implications of its findings. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.06) —This report is the second of three Senate reports dealing with free enterprise health. The first dealt with private nursing homes. This report of the Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes deals with private hospitals and the next will deal with discretionary surgery. In our democratic society, our basic freedom is the right of choice in a system, whether it is education, employment, dwelling, health or freedom of speech. Any regulation imposed by the state on any of the services that we have come to accept as our right, rather than regard as a privilege, will interrupt the smooth delivery of that service. I quote from Sir Robert Menzies in his inaugural Sir Robert Menzies Lecture on `The Foundations of Australian Liberalism'. He said: . . . we come to the real issue between the Socialists and the Liberals. For, when an acute problem arises, the Socialist first thinks of the Socialist solution. Should the Government conduct this matter? But the Liberal seeks first the private enterprise solution. Could private citizens, properly encouraged, solve this problem? It is only when we become satisfied, either that they can't or won't, that Government management comes into the picture. That is a vital difference of approach. That is the basis of many of the recommendations in the minority report of this Committee. Market forces must be allowed to prevail provided that ethical and social standards are maintained by the providers. It is only if those standards fail that government should step in to regulate and control undesirable practices. In such cases the regulation must be only sufficient to control the problem. It is because so many of the Committee's recommendations attempt to add additional regulations to the private enterprise area in the private hospital system that we opposed so many of those recommendations. The Chairman of the Committee has already given an overview of the Committee's recommendations so I will deal only with those recommendations with which I disagree. As I have said, the majority of the recommendations apply to State governments where the Senate Committee has no discretion at all. The Committee has been sitting for so many years now that so much of it is out of date. It has been pre-empted by the changes to the funding of private hospitals announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech in August 1986. We consider that this decision by the Government was a retrograde step and one that will exacerbate problems in both the public and private hospitals, rather than ease them. As Senator Giles said, the majority of the Committee placed considerable weight behind a submission received from Professor Opit and Dr Morley who, on a number of occasions, were unable to substantiate their claims. Much of their submission implied malpractices associated with doctor ownership. On one occasion, when I asked for substantiation, Professor Opit said: Access to the sort of information which we would need to substantiate our claims is not possible for us. As I said, the minority group did not place such reliance on that unsubstantiated evidence as did the majority on the Committee. As Senator Giles said, potential exists, but that existence has never been proved. We believe that the Medicare levy has been largely responsible for taking patients out of the private hospital sector, thus overloading the public hospital system. People are not able to afford both the Medicare levy and additional private hospital insurance. While the Committee was sitting, not enough attention was paid to the problem of occupancy rates in private hospitals. The Government has a number of options available that would lift the occupancy rate and, at the same time, reduce the waiting lists for admission to hospitals in the public sector. Therefore, the Medicare levy has resulted in taking patients out of the private sector and creating the very large waiting lists at hospitals that are concerning both Government and Opposition members. We recommended that patients who choose private hospital accommodation should not be forced to pay twice, as at present, through the Medicare levy and private hospital insurance. That would overcome some of the problems associated with the private hospital occupancy rates. The Committee's concern about entrepreneur- ial medicine would be overcome by the abolition of bulk billing for all those other than disadvantaged patients. That is the policy of the Liberal Party and it is something in which I believe very strongly. We had considerable evidence of entrepreneurial medicine, and the Committee showed great concern about it. There is no doubt that entrepreneurial medicine flourishes under bulk billing. We are not the only people who believe that. Professor Penington, who is an adviser on health matters to the Government, has already come out publicly and said that bulk billing must be abolished to contain overservicing and additional hospital costs. While the Government refuses to take any notice of its medical adviser or of the Opposition, which has been putting the case to it so strongly for so many years, I guess that the majority of the Committee will also tend to ignore the evidence that it receives. As I said, the majority of recommendations demanded that State governments carry out certain functions-something over which the Senate Committee certainly has no prerogative. I shall deal only with the major recommendations with which we disagree. I choose, first, recommendation 4 (ii), which provides: That Directors of Nursing be appointed to private hospital boards of management. The idea seemed very good. Certainly, private hospitals have matrons sitting in to give advice to the boards. The minority report stated: We are concerned that the implementation of this recommendation could impose legal obligations such as possible Tort liability which some Directors of Nursing may be reluctant to assume. Therefore to regulate for the inclusion of Directors of Nursing on private hospital boards would in our opinion be counter productive especially when such people would usually be available at all times to advise the board without being tied by corporate legal responsibilities. The next major recommendation with which we differed was No. 9. It said that all private hospitals should inform the relevant State health authorities of all changes of ownership within 14 days of such change. That creates a great deal of regulation for the private hospital system. The recommendation also said that all private hospitals should: provide the relevant State health authority with full details of all owners of the private hospital and, if the owners are companies, full details including the names, occupations and addresses of all directors. We believe that such additional regulation is unnecessary, although, patients are entitled to know whether a referring doctor has a financial interest in the hospital to which that patient is admitted. Our recommendation reads: All States pass legislation requiring medical practitioners who have financial interest in a private hospital to inform the patients (or where more appropriate the patient's relatives) in writing of that financial interest when referring patients to the private hospital. If the whole of that recommendation were acted upon, the States would be imposing severe and extraordinary regulations on a very small section of the community, well over that that is required in other areas. The next major recommendation to which I wish to refer is No 12. It said that each State should pass legislation prohibiting medical practitioners, or their families from having any financial interest in a private hospital. That does not take into consideration that only 58 per cent of doctors who have any financial interest in private hospitals refer patients to them. The remaining 42 per cent do not refer patients to hospitals in which they have a financial interest. It also ignores the fact that in many centres where a certain facility does not exist, a group of doctors will often set up a private hospital facility to meet the need. That facility would not be provided otherwise. To prohibit that occurring would be detrimental to the community as a whole. Recommendation No. 16 states that professional medical bodies should thoroughly review and redraft their ethical codes in relation to regulating undesirable entrepreneurial activities by their members. As I have already said, the concern about entrepreneurial issues can easily be overcome by not having universal bulk billing, but having it only for the disadvantaged and pensioner groups. We do not believe that this is possible in any State because the Australian Medical Association-I would like to make a correction to my minority report here-which is the major professional body of the medical profession, has a membership of only 50 per cent of the doctors. In my minority report I said that the membership was 60 per cent of the doctors. However, a report by Sir Robert Cotton on the structure of the AMA which has just come out gives a membership figure of just over 50 per cent. So I have sought a change to the figure in my report. When only 50 per cent of doctors belong to the AMA and the ultimate sanction-indeed, the only sanction of any value-is that the doctor is expelled from the AMA and joins the other 50 per cent of members of his profession who are not members, it is a very little detriment to him. Not to change the legislation to give teeth to the AMA but just to ask the AMA to reinforce its professional bodies and upgrade its ethical standards is of no practical purpose at all. Recommendation No. 20 deals with accreditation. It suggests that in the long term States should introduce legislation requiring that as a condition of licence private hospitals should seek accreditation, and make sure that they get it, by the Australian Council on Hospital Standards. That recommendation goes against all the evidence we were given. We were given considerable evidence in this regard. All the evidence was that the best way to go about it was to have voluntary accreditation. We have accepted the evidence the Committee was given. We believed that voluntary accreditation was the correct way to go. The increase in the number of private hospitals seeking accreditation and getting it is an indication that that method is working. Recommendation No. 24 was also of concern to us. Recommendation No. 24 of the majority report recommends that superspecialty services be confined to the major teaching hospitals. The minority report indicates that there are quite a number of superspecialty services in private hospitals already and that unless a private hospital in a particular area indulged in superspecialty services the services would be denied to that community. I take the situation in Hobart where a certain private hospital does all the hip replacements in Hobart because the major teaching hospital there does not have the proper facilities to do them. If this private hospital were denied the right to practise this superspecialty service, the Hobart community would be greatly disadvantaged. Senator Brownhill and I believe that the majority Committee members treated the report as a doctor bashing exercise. I was particularly concerned that it should not come across like that, but the acceptance of so much of the evidence from Professor Opit and Dr Morley-unsubstantiated evidence-was an indication that my concern was well founded. I join the Chairman in thanking Dr Sax for the assistance he gave us. I certainly thank the Committee staff, who were very helpful to me, particularly in compiling the minority report. I appreciate the assistance they gave me and thank them for all the assistance they gave the Committee during the compilation of the report. I thank previous staff members-the Committee has been going for such a very long time-who were with us when we first started out. I am not quite sure in what year we started out. Senator Giles —It was 1981. Senator WALTERS —It was 1981; so we have been going a long time. We started on 25 November 1981. We have had a number of staff in that period. I would like to put on record the assistance which earlier members of the staff gave us. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(7.25) —I thank the secretariat of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes for the help its members have given me. I joined the Committee rather late in the piece. Considering the amount of time it has run, since 1981, I am very much a junior. Obviously, I will not be requiring a retirement home, as will some of the members who started with the Committee, seeing that the Committee has gone for so long. I support my colleague Senator Walters in her objections to the majority report and in our dissenting report which has been tabled here this afternoon. Senator Giles, in presenting the majority report, probably spent more time talking about the dissenting report than she spent presenting the majority report. That shows that she has taken a fair bit of notice of and given a fair bit of credit to our dissenting report. The Committee, as I have said, met over a long time on this inquiry. Even by Senate committee standards, it was probably one of the longest running inquiries. The Committee heard a great deal of evidence and waded through an enormous amount of material. In the short time I was a member of the Committee quite a lot of evidence was given, particularly in respect of the accounting methods of private hospitals. The Committee has done a commendable job analysing and interpreting the evidence that has been presented to it. I do not wish in any way to criticise personally my fellow members of the Committee for the hard work they have done. Nevertheless, I felt rather uneasy on several occasions at the direction the Committee was taking. My dissenting report is the result of those concerns. Freedom of choice is an essential element in any health care system if one is to maintain and improve health standards. In Australia we have seen an enormous growth in the private health care sector. No doubt, this rapid growth has attracted criticism from some members of the community who support the concept of socialised medicine. However, the private health care sector has every right to operate under precisely the same set of rules under which any similar business in Australia operates. It has a right to select what services it provides and where, based on a demonstrated need for those services. It has a right to determine its own financial arrangements and to operate under the appropriate State and Federal laws, just as any other business enterprise has. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate for any government-Federal or State-to set standards or requirements that are different, that cause a problem to the private hospital system or that present a cost to any part of the system at the expense of another. The feeling of the report in some places is that there are more requirements on private hospitals than there are on public hospitals. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 278) Senator Black asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: (1) Is the Treasurer aware that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of trade union membership in May 1982 found that 2,567,600 Australians are members of one or more unions. (2) Is the Treasurer aware that comparable taxation statistics (for 1981-82) show that 2,785,690 Australians claimed a tax deduction for union fees and subscriptions to professional organisations. (3) Would the Treasurer agree that the discrepancy between the figures referred to in (1) and (2) above, could point to a wide-spread practice among non-union members of claiming union fees as a tax deduction and that this form of tax evasion might cost the Australian taxpayer over $20 million per year. (4) What steps can the Government take to stamp out the form of tax evasion referred to in (3) above, or alternatively, what steps can be taken to ensure that persons claiming union fees as a tax deduction actually pay union fees. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The Treasurer does not agree that the discrepancy between the figures referred to in question (1) and (2) could point to a wide-spread practice among non-union members of claiming union fees as a tax deduction. The Treasurer understands that the Australian Bureau of Statistics survey excludes Australians who are members of professional organisations, but who are included in the total of persons claiming subscriptions for income tax purposes. (4) Neither the Treasurer nor the Commissioner of Taxation is aware of the alleged wide-spread practice among non-union members claiming union fees as deductions. (Question No. 1114) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 1986: When will the reply to my question, which first appeared on the Notice Paper of 12 February 1986, be forthcoming. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to my reply to Question No. 809 which appeared in the Hansard of 2 December 1986 at pages 3212-3213. (Question No. 1365) Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 September 1986: What are the reasons for your Department's failure to answer my Question on Notice Number 809 dated 11 February 1986 and my supplementary Question on Notice Number 1114 dated 29 May 1986. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to my reply to Question No. 809 which appeared in the Hansard of 2 December 1986 at pages 3212-3213. (Question No. 1529) Senator Reynolds asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 November 1986: (1) Can the Minister for Finance investigate the inequity of tax deductibility levels, which presently favour only applied scientific research? (2) Will the Minister re-examine other areas of research which offer equal benefits to the Australian community and introduce tax deductibility provisions which are equally distributed across Australian research projects? Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) It is assumed that, in referring to different levels of tax deductibility in respect of scientific research, the honourable Senator is comparing the recently introduced 150% tax deduction scheme for expenditure by Australian companies on research and development with the general position where research expenditure may attract deductions of no more than 100%. The 150% tax concession is aimed at improving the level of industrial research and development in Australia. For this purpose, research and development activities, mean systematic, investigative or experimental activities involving innovation or technical risk and carried on either for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge, whether or not having a specific practical application, or of creating new or improved materials, products, devices, processes or services. The concession is not limited to applied research, being that undertaken for the advancement of knowledge with a specific practical application in view. It applies also to basic research-that is, research undertaken to acquire new knowledge without any practical application in view-and to experimental development. Various activities are, however, specifically excluded from the scope of the concession-for example, market research, market testing and research in social sciences, arts or humanities. Subject to technical and cost-effectiveness reviews, this specific purposes concession applies to expenditure incurred during the period 1 July 1985 and 30 June 1991. Whether or not the concession should be extended beyond that period or to research projects not presently within its scope would depend on the outcome of those reviews. (Question No. 1618) Senator Short asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) How much is the fee to be paid to Baring Quantitative Management Limited to advise on the management of the Commonwealth debt. (2) What is the period of the consultancy. (3) Was the contract tendered. (4) Was the Department of the Treasury the only department involved in arranging this consultancy. Senator Walsh —The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Up to #Stg41,000 (about $A95,000) plus travel expenses as agreed between the parties. (2) The terms of the consultancy agreement were finalised on 17 September 1986. The project was originally expected to be completed by about mid-January but it has been agreed to extend the completion date which is now expected to be in April or May. The extension accommodates extra time needed to compile data, and to undertake additional analytical work. (3) No; under the Finance Regulation it is not necessary to call tenders for consultancies. Enquiries made by the Treasury suggested that the particular service offered by Baring Quantitative Management Limited is not readily available from other sources. (4) Yes; although the terms of the consultancy agreement were prepared in consultation with the Attorney-General's Department. (Question No. 1634) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 February 1987: (1) Is the Government aware of the proposed content of the proposed Omnibus Trade Bill likely to be passed by the United States Congress later this year; if so, can the Minister provide details of the various proposals being advanced by Congress and can he also identify those elements which he believes have the potential to affect Australia's trading interests. (2) Can the Government identify those commodities or goods which would be affected by the above Congressional proposals and the extent to which exporters would financially suffer if the above proposals were implemented. Senator Button —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Leadership of both the United States House of Representatives and Senate have initiated omnibus trade bills, as has the Administration. These bills include matters beyond trade and address the question of the competitiveness of United States industry. Their trade provisions are described as being of a `generic character', that is they are designed, in the main, to amend current United States trade law, legal practice and administrative procedures, change definitions and tariff classifications, but generally avoid inclusion of measures to change the terms of access or export for specific products. A number of other bills, of a generic character, have also been introduced. In addition to these there are other bills either tabled or foreshadowed which are product specific. Areas to come within the ambit of such actual or foreshadowed bills include textiles, telecommunications, coal, lamb and uranium. The House Ways and Means Committee is presently developing its version of a trade bill, taking as its starting point an amended version of the trade bill passed by the House of Representatives in 1986 (HR4800, now HR3). Various other House Committees are simultaneously involved in trade hearings. The Senate Committees will have their own trade hearings after the Bill passes through the House of Representatives, probably in May. Specific concerns with the House bill relate to provisions designed to expedite import measures on `perishable' products, certain references to United States coal trade with Japan, casein, duty drawback on United States sugar imports, and the possible auctioning of quotas. We have also made clear our continuing opposition to any expansion of United States export subsidies on agriculture. There are other matters of a generic character. One of the common elements is the provision of a negotiating mandate for the United States' President for the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. These negotiations are likely to be the single most important determinant of the future world trading system and we welcome the active participation of the United States. Some of the provisions in the proposed Trade Bills would make the attainment of a major objective of the negotiations, namely the establishment of an open multilateral trading system with strengthened and fairer trading disciplines, difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. For example, provisions which require discriminatory protectionist action against countries with `unwarranted trade surpluses' with the United States, would represent a major and unprecedented departure from the basic principles of the GATT. In more recent drafts of the House version of the bill there have been significant changes to these provisions. In addition to the omnibus trade bills, there is an on-going debate in both the House of Representatives and the Senate on farm policy, particularly farm income, exports and United States competitiveness. A number of bills have been introduced proposing mandatory supply controls, expansion of the Export Enhancement Program and a `marketing loan' for wheat. In order to reduce the budgetary costs of farm support programs, the Administration has, inter alia, proposed a 10% reduction in the target price for all commodities in Fiscal Year 1988. (2) These Bills provide for increased protectionism for United States industry. Consequently they could present a serious threat to several categories of Australian exports both in terms of reduced access to the United States market and in terms of unfair competition from subsidised United States products on other markets. There is also the risk that Australia's raw material and food exports to third world countries could be adversely affected by the trade pressure being applied by the United States on countries such as Japan and the Republic of Korea. A clearer picture of specific Australian commodities at risk should emerge over the coming months as the various Committees of Congress examine United States trade legislation in detail. Every effort is being made by the Australian Government to protect Australia's trading interests in the United States and to ensure that our concerns are fully understood by opinion makers in the United States. During my visit to Washington in February I had meetings with key Administration and Congressional figures. In late March I had a further opportunity to press Australia's case with Mr Clayton Yeutter, the United States Trade Representative, at a meeting of Trade Ministers at Taupo in New Zealand. In addition, our Embassy in Washington and our Consul-Generals in the United States have been very active in presenting Australia's case. We have also been active with the United States Embassy in Canberra. Senator Walsh —On 1 December 1986 (Hansard, page 3049) Senator Knowles asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, the following question without notice: Is it a fact that, in the wake of the Keating affair, the Australian Taxation Office has changed its procedures for handling enquiries from the media seeking information about Tax Office procedures concerning late lodgment of returns. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: There has been no change to the Commissioner's policy or procedures. In accordance with established arrangements, the Commissioner's officers are available to explain policy and procedural matters. However, where the provision of a published policy document (or part thereof) available under the Freedom of Information Act is necessary to satisfy an enquiry, it may be appropriate to refer the enquiry to the Freedom of Information section of the Taxation Office. This applies regardless of whether the enquiry is from the media or elsewhere.