Wednesday, 25 November 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: 1. They are concerned that in the Tuggeranong Valley area of the ACT, no non-government schools have Year 11 and 12 places. 2. They want the new Catholic secondary school to be built at Isabella Plains to go to Year 12. The petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled ensure that adequate resources are provided by the Government to allow Year 11 and 12 places to be provided at the Catholic Secondary School at Isabella Plains in accordance with the Government's commitment to a dual system of education and greater school retention to Year 12. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 122 citizens). To the President and senators in Parliament assembled, your humble petitioners showeth that the proposed Identity Card will have a dramatic impact on the lives of all Australians, and your petitioners therefore request a national referendum on the Identity Card Bill before the proposal is resubmitted to Parliament. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 14 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: 1. That we are totally opposed to the introduction of a compulsory national identification system under the control of the Federal Government. 2. That we reject the identity card proposal because it will involve massive expenditure of taxpayers funds while being ineffective in combating the problems of tax evasion, illegal immigration and abuse of the social security system. 3. That we are deeply concerned at the invasion of each Australian's privacy and the loss of their freedom that would occur if the identity card was introduced. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate should: Reject the identity card or allow for a national referendum so the Australian people can decide themselves whether they want the costly, ineffective and intrusive un-Australian identity system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 159 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: We consider the Federal Government's decision to have Telecom charge for the cost of `Directory Assistance' inquiries will greatly disadvantage, the sick, the elderly and the handicapped. Specifically, it will impose an unjustified financial burden on those with sight impediments and reading difficulties, such as the elderly. It will also disadvantage physically handicapped people and persons confined due to illness. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Government to: Reverse its decision to have Telecom charge for ``Directory Assistance'' inquiries. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: that we are totally opposed to the introduction of the Government's Identity Card; that this form of national and compulsory identification will be intrusive, costly for taxpayers and business and will not be effective in combating the growing problems of tax evasion, illegal immigrants or social security; that we call upon the Government to improve management systems within the Australian Tax 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 Boswell (from 15 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 we consider the 2% discounting of Commonwealth Occupational Superannuation Scheme pension adjustments on 10 October 1986 to be a serious breach of trust by the Government. This cut has reduced the base for future adjustments. The Government has promised to restore the base as soon as economic circumstances permit. Having regard to the state of the economy as portrayed by members of the Government in recent months and the interaction between Social Security pensions and the above mentioned adjustment, your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should urge the Government to restore the pension base for the calculation of future adjustments and that the restoration be effective in conjunction with the Social Security adjustments in November 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 35 citizens). To the Honourable the President and senators in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Dawson electorate respectfully shows that: the Hawke Labour Government has no mandate to introduce its flawed and costly ID card proposal, and that the card will not stop tax and welfare fraud and will invade the private lives of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate will urge the Government to reject Labor's ID card proposal. by Senator Boswell (from 61 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 the proposed national ID Card and numbering system threatens the privacy of law-abiding Australians opening the door to computer matching of personal information, will cause inconvenience to rural people in particular, and will result in massive compliance costs for private business. That the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee Report of 1986 showed that the Australia Card will not be effective in combating taxation and social security fraud and illegal immigration, as its cost savings are based on faulty estimates. That accordingly the Senate and Parliament should reject the Australia Card Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 44 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled- The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-1986 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 98 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows that: There is widespread concern at the increasing breakdown of public order in the A.C.T. This breakdown is shown by the recent increase in reports of violent assault-one of which concerned the tragic death of a young man at a school fete. The involvement of groups of youths in some of these assaults causes particular concern. Such behaviour is affected by the ready availability, to young people, of alcohol and video and films which depict extreme violence. Your petitioners therefore ask the Parliament to: Make unlawful the creation of a public nuisance by loitering. Ensure the enforcement of laws which prohibit the public consumption of alcohol by under-age persons, and Legislate to restrict the production, distribution and sale of material which depicts extreme violence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Parer (from 126 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: Relating to the proposal that Telecom charge subscribers for local calls on a metered time basis. If adopted, this will have a deleterious effect on elderly people living alone, who depend greatly on the pleasure and support derived from a leisurely chat with a friend. We, the undersigned, seek your sympathetic consideration of the serious consequences of this proposal to elderly citizens all over Australia and beg you to use your influence to block the additional charges for local calls. by Senator Reid (from 37 citizens). The President and senators of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned wish to draw to the attention of the House that `Telecom plan to reduce the 24-hour service at the telegraph office at East Block in February 1988 and completely close the office in November 1988'. In view of the `hundreds of thousands' of words of public telex messages transmitted for politicians and journalists at Parliament House, the hundreds of after-hours customers using this office, the large profit made at this office, we request that Telecom be asked to retain the 24-hour service until July 1989, when communications will be transferred to Australia Post. by Senator Reid (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of members and supporters of the National Epilepsy Association of Australia draws to the attention of the House that under Regulation 26 of the Migration Act any person suffering from epilepsy is not permitted entry to Australia. We do ask that the Parliament have epilepsy erased from the regulation because: Epilepsy is a physical condition not a mental illness. Bring our immigration policy into line with overseas countries e.g. Britain, Canada, France, USA where epilepsy is not a bar to immigration. Seems an appropriate time to make such an amendment as a review into Australia's Immigration Policy is presently being conducted by Dr Stephen Fitzgerald, Chairman of Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policy. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from seven citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service. that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources, would destroy the independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gareth Evans (from 74 citizens). Petitions received. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the proposal by British Petroleum (BP) to explore for oil on the edge of Ashdown Forest, the home of A. A. Milne's characters, Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Eeyore and Christopher Robin; (b) applauds the statement by Christopher Robin himself that ``Here at Ashdown Forest we have the best possible chance of making it plain that there are other things than oil and money which we treasure. Things that we have inherited from our past. Things that we have to hand on to future generations, which are worth more than oil and money''; and (c) condemns the pro-development policies of Margaret Thatcher's Government and her Environment Secretary, Mr Nicholas Ridley, for their support of BP's environmentally destructive proposal to search for oil in Winnie the Pooh's birthplace, Ashdown Forest, which has so far remained virtually unchanged since A. A. Milne first visited there in 1925. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —On a somewhat different note, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the apparent increase in instances of violent behaviour in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and in particular, the incidence of under-age drinking, taking place in Canberra's teenage community, and recognises that this problem has led to an increase in violent behaviour and acts of vandalism. (b) commends the Government for moving to amend drinking laws in the ACT to give police greater powers to deal with under-age drinkers, but, notwithstanding this action by the Government, is of the opinion that police numbers in the ACT must be restored to the 1976 levels of 3.7 police for every 1,000 people in the ACT, from the present 3.4 police for every 1,000 people to cope with the increase in criminal and anti-social activity; and (c) calls upon the Government to restore that ratio of policing to Canberra residents as a matter of priority. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) regrets the increasing politicisation of the Olympic Games; (b) recognises the importance of the Olympic Games as a unique oppportunity for the fostering of deeper sporting ties and cultural understanding between the peoples of the world; (c) urges the Australian Government to support publicly the proposal by Greece to host the 1996 Olympic Games, which will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first modern Olympiad in Athens in 1896; and (d) encourages the Australian Government to seek assurances from other nations that they will support the Greek bid to host the 1996 Olympic Games, and that they will participate in this historic event. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —by leave-I sought leave to make this statement, frankly, because of the lack of interest by the Senate yesterday in the report which Senator Collins put down on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Honourable senators who were paying attention yesterday would have realised that another little bit of history was being made by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. It must be some kind of record for Senator Collins and the Committee to have nursed along some 21 notices of motion for the past four weeks or so, to have obtained a catalogue of promised amendments by Ministers and, in the process, to have lost none of the legislation to disallowance at the end of the day. It is another demonstration of the power and authority of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the significance its work has in the Senate. When the notices of motion were given on 22 October this year, I made a statement expressing my view that the Committee was possibly the most important committee we have in the Senate because of its apolitical watch-dog role. The process of subordinate law making, apparently by Ministers but in reality by departmental bureaucrats, can be assisted only by their paying close attention to the kinds of flaws and problems in the law which the Committee brings to light. The Committee's great strengths are its long-standing bipartisan tradition, its avoidance of criticism of the merits of delegated legislation, its lack of political motivation and its concentration on technical and legal issues of principle regarding personal rights and parliamentary propriety. There are also, of course, the statutory disallowance powers of the Senate, which, to the credit of successive governments, are cast to allow for proper parliamentary supervision of subordinate law made under parliamentary authorisation. Also, this Senate has consistently backed the Committee with its own authority and that is a factor which has greatly strengthened the hand of the Committee in dealing with Ministers and officials who fail to see the need for unsatisfactory law-making to be called to account in the Parliament. I remind the Senate that none of those strengths arrived out of the blue. They were fought for by successive committees and committee chairmen over many years. The vital bipartisanship of the Committee is no accident either. In the hard cases that sometimes arise, it is not easy for Government senators to resist the threat of criticism from their own Ministers or their Party because on the Committee they joined with Opposition senators to obtain an important amendment, to some regulation to protect personal rights or parliamentary scrutiny. Neither is it easy for Opposition senators to adhere rigidly to the Committee's rule of not making political capital out of the Committee's work. Yet for years these standards have been maintained by both sides of the Committee. I believe that the Committee enjoys higher standards of bipartisanship and non-political scrutiny than any comparable committee in the parliamentary world. I congratulate Senator Collins and the Committee on their works in the last month. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-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. Merit Protection and Review Agency-Annual report 1985-86-Pursuant to section 83 of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984. 2. Commissioner of Taxation-Annual report 1986-87-Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and section 140 of the Tax Administration Act 1953 and corresponding provisions on the general taxing statute of Australia. 3. Department of Aboriginal Affairs-Annual report 1986-87-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 4. Department of Finance-Annual report 1986-87-Pursuant to sub-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 5. Australian Police Ministers Council-Annual report on the activities of national common police services 1985-86. Motion (by Senator Ryan for Senator Tate) agreed to: That the following Bill be introduced: a Bill for an Act to provide for the reporting of certain transactions and transfers, to establish a Cash Transaction Reports Agency and to impose certain obligations in relation to accounts, and for related purposes. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959 so as to promote the more efficient conduct of the operations of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation (Corporation) and its member banks. The Bill also defines more clearly the relationships between the Commonwealth banks and the Government, having regard to the Government's general policy in relation to statutory authorities, and introduces a dividend requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank (Development Bank). These measures were decided upon following a major review of the Commonwealth Banks Act by the Corporation and the Department of the Treasury. The review identified those areas of the Act which serve to inhibit the efficiency of operation of the Commonwealth banks and constrain their competitiveness and profit- ability. I note that major amendments were made to the Act in 1984 to strengthen the capital base of the Commonwealth banks and provide a more efficient organisational structure. These amendments complement those earlier initiatives and will place the Corporation banks in a position where they will be able to compete more effectively in the banking sector. The main provisions of the Bill were foreshadowed in the Treasurer's press release of 27 October 1987. Among the significant amendments contained in the Bill are amendments which provide for the expansion of the functions and powers of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Commonwealth Bank) and the Commonwealth Savings Bank (Savings Bank). The Bill expands the Charter of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to enable them to provide a wider range of insurance services where the board is satisfied this is necessary for them to be competitive with other banks. Under the present Act, they are precluded from providing insurance services except in respect of housing insurance for their own customers. The proposed changes will enable the Corporation banks to provide insurance products similar to those now available from other commercial banks. The Bill will also expand the powers of the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank to include a wider range of banking and investment services. The range of powers listed reflects the activities that other banks are now undertaking following the deregulation of the financial system, including trusts, stockbroking, futures and commodities dealings. Under the present Act, the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank have been circumscribed in their capacity to extend the services they may offer. The powers of the Development Bank have also been expanded to reflect the range of activities it is appropriate for the Development Bank to undertake. The overall effect of these changes will be to ensure that the Commonwealth banks will be on an equal footing with the private commercial banks in the range of services they can offer. The review also focused on the role of the board and management of the banks and their accountability to the Government. Having regard to the Government's policies in relation to statutory authorities, the Bill introduces a requirement for the board to prepare and submit a corporate plan to the Treasurer. The plan, which will be confidential to the Government, will define the banks' corporate objectives and give an outline of the policies and strategies to be pursued in achieving them. In specifying objectives, the board will be required to include reference to financial objectives, including the level of profitability and the rate of return on resources. The Bill also provides the board of the Corporation with a formal role in the determination of a dividend payment by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the Savings Bank. Under the arrangements proposed, the board will recommend a dividend payment to the Commonwealth, having regard to the need to achieve a reasonable rate of return on capital and to maintain capital reserves to meet prudential requirements. The Treasurer will be able to accept or vary the recommendation up to the present maximum of 45 per cent of the profits of the banks. In the 1987-88 Budget the Treasurer announced that a dividend requirement for the Commonwealth Development Bank is to be introduced. The Government believes that such a requirement is consistent with the Development Bank operating on a commercial basis. In respect of earnings in 1987-88, the Bill provides for an interim dividend of $6.9m to be paid in 1987-88 and a final dividend payment to be paid in 1988-89. Factors to be taken into account in determining the final dividend payment from 1987-88 profits and in subsequent years, will be similar to those outlined above for the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank. The Bill will also give the Corporation greater flexibility in staff management through the repeal of those sections of the Act dealing with appointments, promotions, tenure of office and discipline of staff. These changes to the Act are consistent with the Government's recent initiatives in seeking to improve the efficiency of the public sector by reviewing work practices. At the same time, however, the Bill includes a new provision to ensure that all appointments, promotions or transfers by the Corporation are made having regard to the application of the merit principle. This will require the Corporation to make appointments, promotions or transfers in accordance with procedures that preclude patronage and favouritism and take into account the attributes of applicants to undertake the duties of a position. The Bill also makes transitional provisions to preserve any rights an officer may have when the amendments to conditions of service come into effect. The Bill includes other minor legislative changes which will remove unnecessary administrative procedures and further improve the efficiency of operation and competitiveness of the Commonwealth banks. These amendments include the repeal of Part VI of the Act, which sets out arrangements under which the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank may make housing loans available. Such provisions are no longer necessary as both banks have the requisite powers to make housing loans under other sections of the Act. The repeal of this part will also serve to enhance the flexibility available to the Commonwealth Bank and the Savings Bank in developing innovative packages to assist home buyers and will ensure that the Commonwealth banks are on an equal footing with the other banks in the range of home lending facilities they can offer. The Bill also repeals that section of the present Act which requires oversight by the Treasurer of the Development Bank's borrowing activities. Now that the Development Bank is operating on a fully commercial basis this requirement is no longer appropriate. In terms of the financial impact of this Bill, the introduction of a dividend requirement for the Development Bank will result in payment of $6.9m to the Commonwealth in the 1987-88 financial year and the Commonwealth should benefit from dividend payments from the Development Bank in future years. Improvements in the competitiveness of the Commonwealth banks arising from this package of amendments should enhance profitability and give rise to increased dividend payments in future years. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Ryan) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia for the improved management of the land, water and environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. The amendments are set out in the Schedule to this Bill. The Murray-Darling Basin comprises about one-seventh of Australia. It produces about one-third of Australia's total output from natural resource-based industries. It supports 25 per cent of the nation's cattle and dairy farms, about 50 per cent of its sheep, lambs and cropland, and almost 75 per cent of its irrigated land. Production derived is valued at some $10 billion annually. It is Australia's agricultural heartland. We have been historically successful in our approach to harvesting the waters of the Basin to ensure reliable supplies for irrigation, urban and industrial use. This success, however, has to be measured against the costs of deteriorating water and land quality and diminished environmental amenity. Inadequate attention to the need for an environmentally and economically integrated approach to natural resource management in the Basin has, however, in some instances already set in train resource degradation processes that threaten resource viability. Indeed, it is hard to escape the conclusion that in many ways, past land, water and environmental management practices have been largely exploitive and not conducive to sustainable use of the resources of the Basin. Historically, debate has focused on the security and use of the priceless waters of the River Murray, a non insignificant factor in accelerating the advent of Federation. The first River Murray Waters Agreement, to resolve developing conflicts in the use of River Murray waters, was signed in 1914, legislation came into effect in 1915 and the River Murray Commission was established in 1917. As a result of the first major review of the Agreement in 1983, the responsibilities of the River Murray Commission were extended to include water quality matters but an holistic approach to Basin resource management remained elusive Not that this should be surprising to anyone. Management of the land, water and environmental resources of the Basin involves three State Governments (four if you include Queensland) and the Commonwealth, as well as a multiplicity of local government and regional agencies. It requires the reconciliation of the disparate interests and aspirations of a diverse population of over two million people within boundaries encompassing in excess of one million square kilometres. This reconciliation, while necessarily predicated on sound technical analyses, must inevitably involve hard political and economic choices between competing objectives and measures. The breakthrough came in November 1985 when Ministers of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, with responsibility for natural resources, met to discuss specifically strategies to improve natural resource management in the Basin. In a genuinely historic initiative, the four governments decided to shelve parochial interests and adopt a strong, co-operative approach to better management of the Basin. The most immediately visible outcome of the meeting was the agreement to establish a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council on an ongoing basis. Ministers also initiated a wide-ranging work program to develop institutional and technical options for improved Basin management. Council met in August 1986 and in March 1987. In the light of its deliberations and the substantial body of advice provided by its advisory committee, all four Governments have now agreed to substantially revise the institutional arrangements for managing the Basin. The Bill currently before the Senate complements similar legislation before the Parliaments of the other three signatories and aims to have in place by 1 January 1988, an institutional framework at inter-governmental level that will facilitate and support State-based initiatives. The amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement will give a clear legislative base to the operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. The Council will provide a focus for consideration of planning and management issues for the sustainable use of the natural resources of the Basin. It will be responsible for the development of policies and strategies for their efficient, equitable and co-ordinated management. Composed of those Ministers representing the portfolios of water, land and environment from the four governments, the Council will be in a position to make informed political judgements and balanced trade-off decisions. It will be able to take a holistic, overview stance on management issues. It is this that distinguishes the current initiative from past endeavours which have been State-based or, in the case of the River Murray Waters Agreement, confined to the regulation of a particular resource or aspects of it. The amendments before the Senate also propose the establishment of a new Murray-Darling Basin Commission to replace the River Murray Commission. This new Commission will assume the River Murray Commission's regulatory responsibilities under the River Murray Waters Agreement, and will also have a broader advisory responsibility to the Ministerial Council on land, environment and water matters not covered in the Agreement. Another important element in the proposed legislation is the provision for a direct line of communication between Council and the Basin community. From the very outset, Ministers have been mindful of the crucial role that the community will play in the development of improved management practices in the Basin. Accordingly, the proposed legislation includes express provision for a Community Advisory Committee to provide a focus for community input. The formation of a community forum will allow the great variety of local interests the opportunity for consultation on the management of the Basin's natural resources. Such a body will perform the vital role of eliciting and synthesising-so far as is possible-the diversity of community views on particular management issues, and will provide an avenue for two way communication between the Council and the people of the Basin. Consultation must, of course, involve more than drawing community concerns to Council's attention. Consultation must also carry responsibilities, and private aspirations may well need to be modified in the light of the larger public benefit. It will be essential to the success of the Basin initiative that the community accept both the opportunities and the responsibilities of involvement provided for under this legislation. The Government is confident that the legislation currently before the Senate will provide an institutional framework commensurate with the task to be done. Ultimate success will depend upon a close, responsible and responsive partnership between all the Governments involved and between Governments and the people of the Basin. The Council will need to move with cautious speed. Success will not be achieved easily or overnight, and a long term commitment is required. But the Basin community and the nation will benefit from our efforts to secure the long-term integrity of the natural resources of the Basin. That is a goal very much worth striving for. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.14) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration: An itemised costing and ongoing review until project completion of the proposed satellite monitoring and communications station at Geraldton, and the reasons for the increase in estimated costs from around $25 million to around $300 million. In March this year, the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced in a White Paper that the Government plans to enhance Australia's independent intelligence capabilities by establishing a large satellite communications station in Western Australia. The station, the White Paper said, will contribute to Australia's security in our area of strategic interest, and will be totally Australian-owned and staffed and operated by the Defence Signals Directorate. Subsequent Press articles in the Age and the Australian Financial Review estimated the cost to be from $20m to $25m, with between 300 and 400 staff working there. Later we were told that the station would be near Geraldton. A site has obviously been chosen, as the Government has informed a local farming family, the Martins, that 400 hectares of their 1,000-hectare farm are being taken over. The Government, however, refuses to give any official estimate of the cost of the Geraldton facility, which I find strange, given that in October 1978, in answer to Question No. 1253, cost figures were given for North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar. I find it even stranger, in light of the Defence Minister's Press statement of 18 February 1986, that the Government was going to provide as much information as possible about the joint Australian-US facilities. Yet, we now have a situation where a Labor government is being more secretive than its Liberal predecessor and going back on its earlier statement about being more open. If Mr Beazley was not referring to Australian facilities, but only to the joint facilities, it is very worrying, although perhaps not surprising when we consider the fact that Australian citizens can find out more about what is going on in this country under the United States Freedom of Information Act than under our own Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps it is due to the fact that the Government realised that it could not hide the facts and figures about the so-called joint facilities, but it is certainly attempting to hide the facts about this Australian facility. It is also somewhat contradictory to hear Senator Robert Ray say that it is not the practice of the Government to release details of the specific costs of such facilities when we have the earlier figures for the three joint facilities alongside the Defence Minister's pledge of providing more information on these bases. What makes this more serious is that, according to two officers of the Department of Administrative Services who visited the Martins' farm on 23 October, Messrs Colin Eckert and Ross Temple, the value of the whole project was of the order of $300m, a figure far removed from the estimates given in March in the Age and the Financial Review, which I assume those papers got from some fairly reliable sources. In answer to my question on the subject on 20 November, Senator Ray said that the public servants concerned were not authorised to give out any information about the total projected cost of the new planned facility, adding that the land was not being compulsorily seized either. On whose behalf were Eckert and Temple speaking? What exactly is their official capacity? The Defence Minister's Press release 137-87 indicated that $413m was being spent on new major facilities. If housing is subtracted from this total, that leaves $304.458m. This equates to the figure of $304.298m for proposed new works under division 245.1.02 of the Budget Papers-Department of Defence, New Works contracted by the Department of Administrative Services-which would include the Geraldton communications station. From this, we can subtract other major works named by the Minister, namely, Mulwala for explosives, Darwin for naval support and East Sale for the Royal Australian Air Force, totalling $66m. That leaves $238.3m unaccounted for, which I assume to be the maximum cost for the Geraldton facility. Not only am I concerned that the Government is being misleading about the costs of this project, but also I am puzzled as to why we have to build such a large facility to enhance Australia's security. If the Geraldton station gives us the capability to monitor satellites between 50 degrees east and 180 degrees east or 60 degrees east and west of Geraldton, all the satellites concerned-and there are 121 of them-belong to countries with which we are reason- ably friendly, apart from the Soviet Union. The other countries concerned are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, India, China, Indonesia, Japan and Papua New Guinea and, of course, there are our own satellites. Two of these countries are involved with Australia in the 1947 UK-USA intelligence sharing agreement, and the Defence Minister has already hinted, in March this year, that the United States would share intelligence from the facility. Given that the computers for the Geraldton facility are probably from the United States, this is hardly surprising. Neither will the importing of massive amounts of high-tech equipment help our trade deficit and balance of payments. Then there are countries whose communications could be of intelligence interest to Australia and our allies-namely, France and Italy, who are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, India, Indonesia, Japan, Papua New Guinea and obviously the Soviet Union. On the other hand, we are on close terms with all those countries bar the Soviet Union, and I do not think it is conducive to good neighbourly relations openly to tap into their satellite communications and then share that information with the members of the exclusive Anglo-Saxon club involved in the 1947 agreement. I am also curious to know whether one-third of the earth's surface-that is 50 degrees east to 180 degrees east or the international date line-constitutes Australia's area of strategic interest. According to the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities, Australia's area of strategic interest covered 10 to 20 per cent of the earth's surface. So it seems strange that our intelligence capabilities have to cover so much more of the globe. Also, I would like to ask how the Government intends to acquire the Martin family's land if the family does not want to sell it. Senator Ray said that the Government is not going to compulsorily purchase the land. Senator Robert Ray —Seize. Senator VALLENTINE —Seize, acquire or buy. If the Martin family does not want to sell it, how will the Government actually ensure that a satisfactory arrangement is entered into? Mrs Martin said that the Department of Administrative Services has offered her family $150,000 for the 400-hectare section of the farm designated for the base, although the family's valuer has said that it is worth at least $300,000. As Mrs Martin said, `How do you put a value on something you do not want to sell?'. Therefore, how will the Government acquire the chosen land? At first locals were told that 24 people would be travelling from Geraldton to run the facility. Now they are being told that there will be 200 cars a day along a bitumen road. Obviously, the Government's plans have changed dramatically since the initial announcements in March. Everything about the facility seems to have escalated almost vertically since then. I think the Government should be honest and tell us exactly what it is planning near Geraldton and how much it will cost the taxpayer. What is the Government hiding? It should not pretend that this project is all top secret, when details have been made available to Australian taxpayers in the past on the costings of the so-called joint intelligence facilities. This project is meant to be totally Australian except, of course, for the end use to which the gathered information will be put. The Pentagon planners must be laughing. This time a foolish Australian government is not only providing additional information to the United States, but is doing so at no cost whatsoever to the United States. We gather and provide the information to the United States to suit its purposes, and we pay. What suckers we are. Therefore, for an Australian government to present this project as totally Australian is dishonest. For any Australian government also to try to hide from the taxpayers what millions of Australian dollars, to the tune of roughly $300m, will be spent on is an outrageous abrogation of the notion of government accountability. We have a right to know what the Government is doing on our behalf. We demand to know the costings of this facility. They are being hidden from us, I suspect, because the Government has plans to build something much larger and with much more significant spying implications than it dares to admit. That is not good enough. Not only the people of Geraldton, but all Australians have a right to know what is going on. In the interests of open government and taxpayers' right to information, referral of this project until its completion to the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration is essential. I commend this motion to all honourable senators. Debate (on motion by Senator Robert Ray) adjourned. Senator Vallentine —Excuse me, Mr President, I was a little bit slow on the call. Could I call for a division on this motion, please? The PRESIDENT —The debate has been adjourned and we are now proceeding to the next business. Consideration resumed from 24 November. GROUP D Department of Employment, Education and Training Proposed expenditure, $1,825,267,000 Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.24) —I have a number of matters I wish to raise. It might be useful to raise them one at a time and have the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) respond to them on that basis. Given the Government's intention to wind up the Australian Curriculum Development Council and the obvious concerns with expenditure which had been committed to education through the Council, which is now in limbo, I presume that the Department of Employment, Education and Training will be taking it over. If some type of statement had been made to that effect, it certainly would have relieved the minds of quite a number of people. I refer, firstly, to the Australian curriculum information network. It is a vital network which is available to educators and others. Of course, that particular network is a sub-section of the Australian schools catalogue information service. I would also be interested in the financial arrangements that will be made for the continuation of that service and the financial arrangements that will be made for the continuation of the national software co-ordinating unit, which is also a part of the Curriculum Development Council. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.26) —I have a response on the two matters raised regarding the curriculum network and the national software co-ordinating unit. Those functions will be continued. They will be transferred to the Department, but will continue unchanged. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.27) —The second point I wish to raise revolves around the problem that has arisen as a result of the imposition of administration fees for overseas students. A problem has arisen with the Commonwealth post-graduate awards scheme. As the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan) would know, the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which was presented in February this year, argued that between about 40 and 50 per cent of university research is conducted by post-graduate students during their training. The report warns that post-graduate training is being adversely affected by the inadequacy of the available support schemes. ASTEC points out that part of the reason for this is a drop in the number of students studying in a crucial area such as engineering. Between 1973 and 1985 we had a drop from 546 students to 442 students, which is extraordinary given the growth and need for qualified students in engineering in Australia and the particularly very strong impetus given by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in that area. We have fewer qualified people coming out than we have had in the past. ASTEC states: Part of the reason for this is the low level of the Commonwealth postgraduate research award scheme stipend. Graduates in these disciplines can command a salary greatly in excess of the CPRA and, not unnaturally, many graduates with the capacity to undertake a higher degree choose not to do so. This is important, not just for the way it diminishes the number of future researchers available to Australia. In addition, the need to supplement the CPRA by part-time work has tended to extend completion times for postgraduate degrees to an undesirable length in many instances. That is a separate matter. The point I wanted to raise regarding the appropriations is whether or not the Government will be looking at either a supplementary grant in this area or a significant rise beyond that which is actually set down in the Budget. The Budget Papers show that there has been an increase of 8.6 per cent, which is only slightly more than inflation in the same period. Can the Minister advise whether there has been in the past, or is intended to be in the future, any link between the stipend provided to post-graduate students and that of any other area that is relevant. For example, in 1959 the postgraduate living allowance award was 85 per cent of the salary of a university researcher, 73 per cent of a tutor's salary and 64 per cent of the salary of a grade 1 research officer in the Australian Public Service. They are relevant areas with which one might make some comparison. In 1987, this year, the award was 40 per cent, 40 per cent and 37 per cent respectively of those salaries. In other words, the award has been cut in half. The reason I have raised this matter is that if it is intended to take the research effort up to any reasonable standard and to attract students to take awards to enable them to complete their research within a reasonable length of time, fairly obviously we can no longer expect the students to continue on the $8,882 which is provided this year. I wonder whether the Government is inquiring into that connection, that linkage, between postgraduate students on those scholarships and any of those three relevant areas. The problem with tutors is that they do not come under a Federal award so there would be different salaries in different universities. The award could perhaps be linked with the salaries of research assistants. They differ from State to State but are relatively uniform and currently around $20,000 a year. Or, given the fact that we are talking about a Federal responsibility, the award could be linked with the salary of a research officer in the Australian Public Service, which is also a relevant area. There would need to be some type of discounting of those levels-and I accept that-because the research officer in the Public Service may have, and probably does have, duties over and above research. I believe that it would not be too difficult to link the award with the salary. It is probably already the case that, in the approach made to arbitration by Public Service unions when arguing for a pay claim for research officers, a research component has been identified. I imagine that it would be relatively easy to take the research component of the research officer's salary from the salary for all other duties. That sum could be directly compared with the award for postgraduate students. I wish to raise one other item which points out the absurdity of the situation we are getting into. At La Trobe University an Indian student was offered a postgraduate award and suddenly discovered that the overseas student visa charge was almost identical to the award which we offered. That student went to the Canadian Government's international development research committee. This is an extraordinary situation. The Canadian Government has paid that student's overseas student visa charge because it judged that the potential of his project was such that it should be able to go ahead. We have really got down to a farcical state when the Canadian Government pays a visa charge that the Australian Government puts on a student who has an award from the Australian Government. If we felt that the student's project was sufficiently valuable to grant him an award, why did we then slap on the visa charge, which is almost identical in value to the award, thereby rendering the exercise quite futile from the point of view of that student? We can be thankful to the Canadian Government that it has seen the value of the project and is continuing to fund it through its international funding agency, the Development Research Centre. The difficulty is that overseas students have not had the benefit this year because most of the universities granted their awards before the Government's deadline came in. This move undoubtedly will come to fruition next academic year; that is, within this financial year, within this budgetary arrangement. It does not seem to me that in this Budget the Government has very much leeway. That is of enormous concern to me. In all of the correspondence from the Minister there are statements at the end which suggest that the Government will be reviewing this, looking at it and keeping a close watch on it, and all those other phrases that one tends to get in letters from departments, but the sum result of all that guff at the end of the letters that the Department sent out over the Minister's name presumably means that it is reviewing the situation and will be able to move to alleviate any potential problems that arise. If this is the case, where is the allocation in the Budget to enable the Government to move in academic year 1988 to take up the slack, to overcome the problem? Or is it the Government's intention-as presumably the Budget sets out because it does not make any allowances for the Government to be able to move, despite the fact that the letters keep saying the Government is looking at it closely and will move if problems arise-to lump the entire additional cost which undoubtedly will arise in academic year 1988 on to the universities and to say that it is their problem to pick up the extra tab that will have to be picked up if these people are to be able to continue their research? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.37) —Senator Macklin has made some general comments about the difficulties facing individual post-graduate students who are not easily able to meet the overseas student charge (OSC). Some of his comments about the need to have an increased post-graduate effort in research in Australia are comments with which neither I nor the Government would disagree. However, Senator Macklin will be very well aware that the decision to introduce the charge for overseas post-graduate students was necessitated by the budgetary situation. Senator Macklin will be very well aware that the demands on the Federal Government's education expenditure are very large and grow all the time. It is simply not possible for the Government to meet all of those demands in the way that Senator Macklin would ideally like. The Government is monitoring the effect of the charge on post-graduate research students. In 1987 the effect on Government sponsored post-graduate scholarship and award programs was offset by supplementary funding. In 1988 and in subsequent years, however, at this stage we expect that the OSC will have to be met from government program funds. This will cause about a 15 per cent reduction in the number of government awards and scholarships available, if the situation does not change. However, we are monitoring the situation. Senator Macklin will be aware that it is the intention of the Minister responsible, Mr Dawkins, to bring out a Green Paper looking again at the whole question of funding all levels of higher education. It may well be that following consideration of the results of that new look at the situation some different steps are taken in relation to the students. If we had more money we could usefully spend it in this area but at this stage, given the various pressures on the Budget, it was not possible to modify the charge for the forthcoming financial year. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.39) —I thank the Special Minister of State for her response. It would seem, then, that we will be looking at a possible reduction, as I understand the Minister, of 15 per cent if we need to pick up the additional amount. Senator Ryan —If there is no change. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I move to another problem that I think is presented by the estimates provided. I refer to international participation and the grants to educational organisations, under division 270.7. For the Australian-American Education Foundation, $240,000 was spent in the 1986-87 financial year, and the amount increased for this financial year to $360,000. As the Committee is aware, the Australian-American Education Foundation is a product of the Fulbright exchange program set up at the end of World War II to provide for the exchange of students between the United States and foreign countries. The scheme allowed credits accumulated by the sale of surplus American war materials to be used to finance this scheme, so it is a long-standing scheme. When the Australian-American Education Foundation was established in 1964 to replace the United States Educational Foundation, which administered the Fulbrights from 1949 to 1964, the governments of the two countries concerned-that is, Australia and the United States-agreed upon a formula by which each country would fund 50 per cent of the Foundation. That was the agreement. I believe that the amount set down in the Budget Papers is in direct contradiction of the agreement. The agreement states: The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United States shall each make available to the Foundation one-half of the new funds needed to finance the approved annual budget. Of course, the present situation has occurred for a number of years, that is, the Australian contribution has fallen significantly short of the United States contribution. I believe that the exchange rate problems account for only a very small proportion of the disparity between the Australian and the American contributions under that agreement. Last year the Government decided to further discount its contribution by insisting that post-graduate students in Australia, as I have already said, should pay the overseas student charge, which can range anywhere between $3,800 and $6,800, depending on the year that the person started the particular post-graduate course being undertaken. At the moment, as far as I have been able to ascertain, 12 American post-graduate students are having to pay the charge. The Foundation picked up that charge this year. It is a significant outlay and a significant problem for the Foundation in the future. As I understand it, the Foundation, as the Minister has already indicated in terms of the Commonwealth post-graduate awards scheme, will probably have to reduce the number of people so that the stipend can remain at a reasonable level. I will hone in on the particular items in the portfolio program estimates in Budget Paper No. 3. There is a 50 per cent increase, but there is a catch; that is, the extra $120,000 provided in this estimate, as against the actual expenditure last year, is on a government dollar for dollar basis, whereby the Foundation will get donations from other sources, such as business, industry, universities or whoever happens to be wandering around who likes to donate to this scheme. As I see it, that is directly contrary to the spirit of the agreement entered into between Australia and the United States in 1964. The proviso that each government should make available one-half is, I believe, violated by the Government's notion that the Foundation will have to find half of the extra amount, rather than the Government guaranteeing that extra amount. The Minister should not get me wrong. I am not actually opposed to the Foundation getting supplementary grants. In fact, I hope that it gets as many supplementary grants as it can. It is a very worthwhile project, and the exchange of students between our two countries should continue and flourish. I am certainly not opposed to the Foundation. However, I am opposed to the fact that the amount that it gains is dependent on the amount that the Commonwealth will give. I believe that, on any reading of the agreement, the Government has an obligation to provide those funds. If it does not have the intention of doing that, it may very well have been-and this has not been made public-that the Government has notified the Government of the United States of its intention to terminate that agreement and to have it replaced by some other agreement. I am unaware whether or not that is the case. I would be interested to hear whether that is so. I believe that our relationships with the United States in a whole host of areas are at a delicate stage. It is really quite inappropriate for us in Australia to be taking the American Government for a ride. One finds in the Congressional Record a report of a recent stringent debate with regard to a whole host of countries which have entered into an agreement with the United States but which are not fulfilling those agreements although the US is still putting up the money for a whole range of projects. It is not possible for Australia to conduct activities with the United States on anything other than an up-front basis. I was a member of an all-party delegation which lobbied the United States on its failure to fulfil agreements with Australia with regard to trade. I think that that country could quite rightly take come-back to us if we were doing a fiddle. As the Congressional Record points out, a large number of countries are doing a fiddle with regard to agreements that have been entered into. If it is the intention of the Australian Government to continue to underfund this program or, in a surreptitious way, to lean on the Foundation itself to come up with the money, I believe it would be far better for us to terminate the agreement, replace it with something that matches the reality of our funding commitment and continue from there. I do not think it is possible any longer to expect the American Government to continue to pick up the tab on an agreement that the Australian Government is no longer willing to uphold. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.47) —I can inform Senator Macklin that there have been discussions in recent years with the American Government about the capacity of the Australian Government to contribute to this program. Senator Macklin noted in his comments that there has been a substantial increase in respect of this program in this year's Budget over last year's Budget. I am very pleased to see that because, from memory, in at least the two Budgets before the 1986-87 Budget there had been no increase at all in either money or real terms. But, in any event, because of budgetary pressures we had been unable to make any improvement at all in our contribution to this program. This year we have made a significant contribution. We are still not contributing to the level we had intended to contribute when the Australian Government signed the agreement in 1964. But Senator Macklin will be aware that we have suffered many financial and economic problems since that time and our capacity to contribute to these programs, worth while as they are, has been significantly eroded. However, I can assure Senator Macklin that I know of no intention on the part of our Government to withdraw from the agreement. Indeed, in response to discussions between our two governments, in which I participated in Washington earlier this year, there has in fact been an increase. I can only express the hope that this is the beginning of a new trend in further increases. As to the expressed wish that the Australian- American Education Foundation attract support from the private sector, I would not regard that as a surreptitious or back-door way of supplementing the funds. Senator Macklin will be aware that it is very much established practice in the United States that education bodies seek, and indeed get, funds from private sources. One of the reasons why education at some levels in the United States is better funded is the tradition of corporate and private sector support for education. It is certainly not a surreptitious but rather an often stated hope of the Australian Government that we can encourage the private sector in Australia to emulate the American tradition and become substantial supporters of education programs. So I hope that this particular program will be in a healthier condition this year and following future Budgets. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.50) —I thank the Special Minister of State (Senator Ryan). I want to clarify the point I was making. I was saying not that this was a surreptitious way of getting money but that it was a surreptitious way for the Government to fulfil its obligations. I strongly support the notion of the Australian-American Education Foundation raising money. Taking into account the difficulty that the very small secretariat of the Foundation faces in having to spend money to get money in, I am not at all sure that, by the end of this financial year, it would be able to get anything of a substantial nature to be able to pick up the dollar for dollar exercise that the Government intends it to engage in. I am also mindful, as the Minister would no doubt be aware, having had the responsibility of the education portfolio for a number of years, that the willingness of Australia's private sector to put its hand in its pocket to support education is in no way commensurate with the way in which American foundations are willing to do that. Indeed, Australian private industry believes that the public should pay for all of the education in this country and that it is its God-given right to pick up the graduates of the publicly funded education system for its own benefit, and then it says that the Government is spending too much money. I have been irked continuously that our private sector believes that it has no obligation to the education of Australian citizens. The last point which I wish to raise concerns the guarantee given by the Government in 1984 with regard to Commonwealth assistance to government and non-government schools through recurrent funds. The Minister will remember, having had the carriage of the legislation at the time, that a review may be in some sort of jeopardy. But I would like to know whether or not the review that was contemplated at that stage will in fact be caught up in the general review that the new Minister, Mr Dawkins, has announced. There is a concern that Commonwealth participation in schools may decline, particularly through the specific purpose programs, which may result in the demise of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. If this review is to go ahead, will it be a general review or will it be a specific review as enunciated in 1984? Will the reviewing body include representatives of school systems, parents and teachers? Lastly, is it intended that that review will affect the allocations in this financial year or is it intended that it will look at the academic year 1989-in other words, the next Budget in August 1988? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(10.53) —There is no reason to suppose that there will be any major changes to the eight-year recurrent program as a result of the review. Senator Macklin will be aware that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has given constant support to that program. When the review was announced by me prior to the last election, I explained that it would be a technical review-that is, we would be looking to see how the scheme is operated, how the allocation of schools to various categories has worked out, the effectiveness of the appeals process and so forth. But there was no intention that there be any major changes in the direction of the program until the end of the eight-year period. The Department of Employment, Education and Training has already been in consultation with various school and other interested groups and that consultation will continue during the review. So there is no reason to suppose that there is any change of direction in regard to the eight-year funding scheme from what was announced prior to the last election. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(10.54) —My cousin Senator Peter Baume raised during a meeting of Estimates Committee D the effectiveness of the new job training programs for unemployed youth. He asked: Why does the objective- for these programs- say nothing about getting employment for people? Why does it talk about `enhancing the employment prospects'? Senator Sheil said: . . . you spend about $178m on it, and that is a lot of money that could provide a lot of employment. The programs need to be very successful. In that context, two interesting responses have emerged. The first was a response from the Department that clearly indicated its view that the community employment program (CEP) had been wiped out and superseded by these new arrangements. The Department, in relation to the new arrangements, said: . . . compared to alternatives such as, say, the community employment program, the results are quite cost- effective. The admission by the Department that the CEP was relatively unsatisfactory, relatively less cost- effective, simply backs up many of the points made last year by the Waste Watch Committee, which was roundly abused by this Government: that the program involved a monumental waste of taxpayers' money. We demonstrated where many of the grants under the CEP were really disguised handouts to left wing organisations, union groups and organisations which the Government was endeavouring to buy off, and that a proportion of the money was not going to provide employment opportunities for the long term unemployed. In fact, a lot of that money was going for other things, such as buying assets or employing people in front organisations-for example, the Socialist Workers Party and other extraordinary groups. The money was even going to assist in the operations of the peace bus by the People for Nuclear Disarmament under the guise of being assistance for the unemployed. This diversion of multimillions of dollars-we established that quite clearly-by this Government, which was supposed to go towards assisting the unemployed but went into the hands of the people the Government wanted to buy off, or some of its trade union mates, was simply unacceptable. I am glad to see that the Government, in response to the complaints and very pointed and effective criticism by the Waste Watch Committee, has now abandoned the CEP and replaced it with others. As I have said, the Department said that, compared with alternatives such as the community employment program, the results of the new arrangements were quite cost-effective. Senator Stone then asked the Department in the Senate Estimates Committee how the cost-effectiveness was measured; was it measured by getting people into jobs? The Department's response basically was that that was the criterion, the Department had done some monitoring and that, effectively, three months after the completion of training of the individuals involved, so far only 50 per cent had been placed in employment. Senator Stone then asked: Do you also have comparable figures showing how many of those people are still in employment 12 months later? The departmental response was: No, not from that particular monitoring system. Senator Stone went on to say: . . . that a program which is training people and which results in only . . . . 50 per cent of them finding employment as long as three months after they have completed their training has some big question marks hanging over it. Secondly, if you have no data showing how long even those 50 per cent of people who gained employment initially remain in it, I am sure you would agree that that is a somewhat less than satisfactory assessment of the program. I am not here to knock the program. Clearly, on the criteria we already have, it is not as bad as the CEP. It does not involve the waste and diversion of money into assets, for example, which were of particular benefit, because they remained in the possession of the sponsors, who in many instances were politically close to the Australian Labor Party. The question remains: how effective is this program and what assessments does the Government intend to make to monitor its effectiveness, particularly as it is clear from the Senate Estimates Committee discussions that at this stage there has been no effective monitoring of the extent to which people not only get jobs but stay in jobs for longer than three months. I ask the Minister whether the Government regards the assessment techniques being implemented at present as satisfactory and whether or not the Government intends-without diverting too many resources to it; I acknowledge that obvious point-to take a closer look at the success ratios involved. Let us face it: if there is not going to be success and adequate assessment of success, how does the Government know that this program is the right one? Clearly, the Government took a long time to recognise that the CEP was the wrong one. Of course, it had to be told that it was the wrong one by the Opposition. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.01) —Senator Michael Baume stated at the outset of his comments that he was asking questions on behalf of his cousin. I thought that we were going to have a rehash of the discussion we had in the Estimates Committee about the process of setting objectives and then monitoring them in the newly amalgamated Department of Employment, Education and Training. However, he actually proceeded to give us a rehash of his critique of the community employment program (CEP) and claimed, as he has done so repeatedly, that the Government has abandoned the CEP because of his criticisms. That is not the case. Without wishing to waste the time and resources of the Committee in going over debates that we have had with Senator Michael Baume on many occasions, I must say for the sake of the record that the Government's decision to move on from the community employment program was because of the change in the labour market. When our Government came into office in 1983 we had unprecedented unemployment-record high levels of unemployment in virtually every section of the work force. Under those absolutely traumatic circumstances, a program such as the CEP was, in our view, justified. We had to move dramatically to create very quickly a whole range of short term employment opportunities for people who had been on the unemployment scrap-heap for a very long time. We never intended that the CEP would last forever. We always regarded it as a short term measure which we would put into place to give the long term unemployed some experience of employment while we were attending to the major problems of the economy. As Senator Michael Baume will be very well aware, employment has grown substantially during the several Hawke administrations to a point where we judged that programs such as the CEP had served their purpose and we were now in a position to move on to a different emphasis, and that was the formal training of unemployed persons to fill gaps existing in the labour market. The reason for our decision to wind down the CEP, unfortunately for Senator Baume but I think fortunately for the community, had nothing to do with Senator Baume's very biased and unfair criticisms of particular grants that went to organisations which he happens not to like. The reason was the very positive changes in the labour market which had been achieved by 4 1/2 years of Labor administration. Any person who has dealt with the unemployed and with particular groups of the unemployed would know that the labour market has improved for all sections of the unemployed in the last 4 1/2 years. That is not to say that there are not labour market problems or that we still do not have, in many respects, an underskilled work force. But the overwhelming crisis of unemployment which we faced when we came into office, which justified a program such as the CEP, has been modified to the stage where we can look now at more formal training opportunities through technical and further education colleges and the like. Our emphasis is on training rather than on job creation. We believe that our discussions with employers in the public and private sectors are fruitful enough for us to be able to identify school shortages and to ensure that unemployed people are directed to undertake training in appropriate areas-that is, areas which will have a high chance of providing them with jobs after they complete their training. Senator Michael Baume has asked that we engage in a great deal more monitoring of the outcomes for individuals in terms of their employment-that is, individuals who have had access to these training schemes. A very lengthy answer has already been provided for the Senate. It appears on page D17 of Hansard and sets out the various surveys the Government has engaged in. I have it available. If Senator Michael Baume would like it to be tabled again, I am happy to do so. It has already been made available to the Senate Estimates committee and the Senate in the Hansard. There are surveys which examine the effectiveness of particular training programs. It is somewhat ironic that Senator Michael Baume is asking us to go into highly expensive continual monitoring, years after the event, of the outcomes of various training programs. Although such surveys would be interesting to all of us, they would also be extremely costly and would use public funds which, in the view of the Government, may be better spent on training. I do not think we need the very detailed ongoing monitoring that Senator Baume is advocating, because we have extremely well-based liaison procedures with employers. We have traditionally had those procedures through the Australian Labour Advisory Council and other tripartite bodies. During recent years our Government has established further links with private sector employers. There are any number of committees at State and Federal level which are looking closely at the needs of the economy and employees and translating what they see into relevant courses in tertiary and further education colleges and other training institutions. The training courses which are the subject of these appropriations are not set up in a hit and miss way. We have considerably improved our knowledge of what the labour market requires, not only through surveys and things of that kind, but also through better and closer relationships with employer groups and organisations. As I said, I have available some details on particular surveys. Those details have been made available to the Senate and are in the Hansard. I remind Senator Baume of that. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.07) —I do not need to be reminded by the Minister of the surveys. If she had been listening she would have heard me refer to the monitoring of a specific issue, that is, the number of people still in jobs after three months as a result of these programs. I also said that I recognised quite fully that cost implications would be involved and that it was not a matter of getting this information for interest or for some other reason which obviously the Minister does not regard as important. I was concerned that we are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars on programs. It is up to this Government to establish, a darn sight more quickly than it did with the community employment program (CEP), whether these programs are effective. It took the Government years to work out that the CEP was not targeted effectively and that the level of youth unemployment under its brilliant community employment program had reached record levels. It is still at huge levels. For the Minister to talk about the Government's enormous success in job creation when it has hanging over its head an enormous level of youth unemployment is absolutely disgraceful. All I am seeking is an indication from the Government of whether it believes it would be worth while to take a closer look at whether this much improved form of training-I make that concession to the Government; it is much improved-has been successful. It does not seem to me to be asking the Government too much to ask it to address this question properly. If the Minister does not want to address it properly, it probably shows her attitude to the whole question of youth employment. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Does the Minister wish to reply? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.09) —Senator Michael Baume is engaging in rhetoric. It would not be useful for me to delay the Committee with a response. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.10) —The Office of the Public Service Board has instituted the Government's policy of encouraging union membership. This matter was also raised in Estimates Committee D hearings. The public servant involved said that, as part of the policy of encouraging union membership, various measures had been undertaken, including the issuing of circulars and so on to members of staff. He said that the Government's policy was made known to staff in staff circulars following circulars issued to departments by the former Public Service Board. The Office of the Public Service Board has sent out a memorandum, which was included in the back-up answer to two questions asked by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Stone at the Estimates Committee hearing, in the following terms: The success of the Board's policy in encouraging staff to join the appropriate union will depend largely on how well the policy is publicised and understood. The statement set out below, which summarises the reason for this policy, should be notified to staff. This memorandum was addressed to all departments, statutory authorities and staff organisations. It continued: The Board's policy of encouraging staff to join the appropriate unions stems from the important role played by the unions in the affairs of the Service and the Board desires that those unions be truly representative of staff interests. While the decision to join a union is one for the individual officers and employees, it is the Board's hope that staff will not only join but also actively participate in their union's activities. What is the cost of the Government's policy to encourage employees in the Commonwealth Public Service to belong to unions? Does the policy extend to giving preference in regard to promotions, where all other things are equal, to unionists above non-unionists? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.13) —The cost of this policy is not known. It would be almost impossible to disaggregate from the expenditures of the Public Service Board because it is just one of the many activities it used to carry out. Sending out minutes encouraging union membership would be very difficult to cost. As to whether there is any preferential treatment of unionists, I am advised by officers that promotion in the Australian Public Service is according to the assessment of a merit panel which does not concern itself with union membership. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.14) —In regard to the funding cuts to universities, was any consideration given to whether cuts should be as great to States with only a single university as opposed to States with several universities? In my State, which has only one university, the cuts have been draconian. The sum of $620,000 has been cut from the university. It means that there will be very large cuts in staffing. Has any consideration been given to the fact that the State has a single university, whereas most of the States have several universities and are able to bear the cuts more easily? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.15) —I am not aware of any cuts to universities set out in the appropriations. Perhaps Senator Walters could identify the appropriations to which she is referring and demonstrate any reductions from similar appropriations for the year before. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.15) —There is a gradual winding down. There is a 2 per cent cut in Federal Government funding-- Senator Ryan —Where is that? Senator WALTERS —The university has made it very clear that it believes that in Tasmania there has been a 2 per cent cut in Federal Government funding, and this has resulted in a total cut of $620,000. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State)(11.16) —If Senator Walters cannot identify in the appropriations the items that she wishes to raise, I can only suggest that she look again at the appropriations. There has been an overall increase in the funds appropriated for universities in this Budget. The actual allocation of the global sum to different universities is a matter on which the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission advises the Minister, and it will appear when the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bills come before the Senate. At that stage, Senator Walters will be able to identify grants going to the University of Tasmania and pursue her interest in that university. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure, $1,251,369,000. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.17) —Could the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) verify whether the Tasmanian pharmaceutical benefits processing office in Hobart is to go to Melbourne? Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.17) —This may be an appropriate time to raise a couple of matters relating to health. In particular, I would like to refer the Minister to the Health Insurance Commission's annual report, tabled yesterday, which includes the following paragraph: As a result of the decisions handed down by the Government in its May Economic Statement, legislation was enacted to implement a reduction in the Medicare benefit rate to medical services provided in hospitals from 85 per cent (with a maximum gap of $20 per service) to 75 per cent (with no maximum gap). Although not taking effect until 1 August 1987, this decision has resulted in a significant commitment by the Commission in amending its claims processing procedures. What is the additional cost to Medicare, to the Health Insurance Commission-and therefore presumably to the Australian people-of these significant commitments to amend its claims processing procedures? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.18) —In response to Senator Walters's question, I can say that the future plans for the Tasmanian pharmaceutical benefits office are under review. There has been a drop-off in demand. The whole of the pharmaceutical benefits office system is being reviewed, and no decision has yet been taken. In response to Senator Michael Baume, I can say that that cost is not available, and we shall take the question on notice. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.19) —Is the Minister suggesting that not as many pharmaceuticals are being used in Tasmania as there were? The Minister said that there was a drop- off-in what? Was it in processing claims? I am interested to know what the Minister means. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.20) —That is right. There has been a drop-off in the processing of claims at the office level because of the block processing of claims which is being carried out following the efficiency scrutiny review. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(11.21) —I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the continual doctor bashing being undertaken at the moment by one of the Government's committees. It is unfair, unreasonable and deliberately misleading. I believe that it is being assisted, to some extent, by Ministers, and that borders on being disgraceful when, in so many instances, the Government claims to be co-operating with the medical profession in establishing the manner in which the Australian public is provided with a health service. In particular, the price watch operation set up by the Government under Mr Gear, a member of the House of Representatives, has in recent times quite savagely attacked doctors and their fees. I think people who read the Bulletin would at least get a reasonable view of the position of the general practitioner, which is far from healthy in financial terms and which has been steadily going down in recent years as the Government has set about dismantling Medicare. The latest moves, which I just mentioned to the Minister, involve a reduction in the amount to be paid for medical services when the patient is in hospital from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. That further increases the burden on individual Australians when they have medical attention. Even if the doctors are paid the Medicare fees established by the Government, in many cases these fees are far below the sort of fees which are needed to make the service viable. What we have here is a situation in which the Government is saying not only that the scheduled fee is the right and proper fee and charging anything above that is improper, but also that it will not even pay that fee to the doctor, and it will encourage doctors to bulk bill so that they do not get that fee. Something like 50 per cent of medical fees paid under Medicare, as I noted from the Health Insurance Commission's annual report, are bulk billed. In other words, doctors are not even getting the schedule fee in those instances. It strikes me as extraordinary that this fairly vicious campaign against the medical profession, particularly against the hard-pressed general practitioners, should proceed. This is galling for doctors, and I think for all Australians who are concerned about getting a decent health service. Unless there is an adequate reward system for the medical profession, the incentive for people to devote so many years of their life to becoming experts in this area may well be diminished. I am not saying that financial considerations are the only things that prompt people to become doctors-they are not. But when there are so many other highly-rewarded alternative opportunities for people with the intellectual skills required to get into medical degree courses-for example, in computers and so on-it seems ludicrous that the Government should be so unfair and, I believe, mendacious in its approach to the medical profession. It is nonsensical to pretend that there is one fee for a particular service which must be charged by all doctors. Everyone recognises that when we go, for example, to a supermarket there are some products we can buy that are cheaper than others, probably because they do not have the same quality. In the medical profession there are some doctors who happen to be better than others at doing particular things. Of course, that is especially so at the level of specialist or consultant services. There are some doctors who, quite properly, get a very high reputation. There are some members of the Senate whom one would not even bother raising an issue with or going to see if one were a constituent because one knows that they are sufficiently incompetent, particularly if sitting on the other side of the chamber, not to be effective. In other words, this Government is adopting the lowest common denominator in regard to health. It is saying that anyone who charges above the schedule fee somehow is being improper. That is what Mr Gear and his Government supported committee are saying. They are saying that we are being overcharged if we are charged more than the schedule fee. I do not hear similar complaints in regard to undercharging if we are bulk billed. That logic, apparently, escapes the Minister and her cronies. The Government has shown by its own assertions and its own behaviour that the schedule fee is, in fact, not the specific fee which must be charged in all instances. The Government's own actions encourage doctors to charge less. Nor does the Government pretend that it should be the maximum fee, except, of course, when it is playing politics against the doctors. Here we have a situation in which some doctors, quite properly, because of their additional skills, are entitled to charge more, just as the patient is entitled to ask, if he wants to, what fee the doctor is going to charge for a service and to go to a doctor who may well be prepared to offer the service for less. That is what the free market is all about. It is something that the Government is yet to understand, although it keeps talking about its support for free market economics. The other health insurance question that I wish to raise relates to the attempts by Mr Gear and the price watch committee which the Government has set up to say that health insurance should operate on the same commercial basis as general insurance. Mr Gear asked why, if one were insured through Medicare, one should have to pay more than the schedule fee if one went to a particular doctor. Of course, the whole point is that, if one insures one's house through an insurance company, one pays a premium which allows for the full replacement cost of that house. This is not what Medicare does. In the first place Medicare specifically prohibits the full payment and, secondly, Medicare insurance goes about one-third of the way towards paying for the provision of Medicare. So this Government has no reasonable capacity for pretending that health insurance is like house insurance. If the Government freed up the market and allowed patients to take out full health cover so that they did not have to pay anything-this Government specifically prohibits that-there is no doubt that health insurance premiums for that full health cover would rise, but they would rise to a level which would enable people to insure fully for their health care, just as people are allowed in the free market to insure fully for the replacement of their houses. I notice that Mr Gear, as part of the continu-ing campaign of knocking doctors, quoted from a table produced by the Health Insurance Commission showing the extent of observance of the Medicare fee schedule in the June quarter of 1987. He claims, for example, that it shows that ACT medical practitioners in general charge far more than their State counterparts. He says that the difference between the States is somehow significant. If Mr Gear and the Government referred to a table on page 95 of the annual report of the Health Insurance Commission, they would see some figures which explain why this might be the case. Contrary to the table which Mr Gear cites in saying that the reason New South Wales general practitioners charge less than others is that there is an over-supply of them-in other words, that somehow doctors in the Australian Capital Territory are behaving improperly as against doctors in New South Wales-it can be seen from the table to which I refer that in New South Wales the average value of benefit processed per enrolled person is $205.10, whereas in the Australian Capital Territory it is only $145.52. In other words, the cost to the Health Insurance Commission of what is put forward here as some kind of overcharging is, in fact, demonstrated to be less on average in the Australian Capital Territory than in New South Wales. There may be some special reasons for this, such as people going to Sydney for specialist treatment and so on. I draw to the attention of the Government the fact that it is nonsense to put out figures showing how many people observe the Medicare fee schedule without acknowledging such things as how many doctors bulk bill and the average value of the benefit processed. In New South Wales, as I said, it was $205.10; in Victoria, only $159.68; in South Australia, $170.98; and, in Western Australia, $146.53. Perhaps we could hear some explanation from the Minister for those extraordinary variations between the States in the level of benefit processed for each person enrolled in Medicare. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.33) —I do not think Senator Michael Baume has really been asking questions, although at the end of his speech he asked a question about costs in response to which I will supply information. I simply point out in defence of my colleague Mr Gear that he has not been engaging in doctor bashing. In fact, I quote from his media release in relation to income statistics and overcharging, in which he says: I am pleased to say that the majority of doctors, and in particular GPs, do act responsibly and observe the Medicare Schedule fee. . . . my committee is concerned about a minority of doctors-mainly specialists-who are charging substantially more than the schedule fee. It is a completely unfair representation of the Government's or Mr Gear's attitude to say that we are engaged in doctor bashing. We are not. We are on record on many occasions as supporting the contribution of the medical profession to the Australian community. However, in this area in which there is a minority who are not acting fairly, it is our responsibility to draw attention to it and to do something about it. I add, because Senator Baume made at some length the point about free markets, that it is not the view of the Government-I am sure it is not the view of the medical profession generally-that one can tell how good a doctor is by how much he or she charges. To my own knowledge, I am aware of doctors of the highest standard who do not seek the dollar as their ultimate satisfaction professionally but who have other ways of achieving professional satisfaction. I would think that the Australian Medical Association or any other organisation certainly would resile from the view that the best doctors are the ones who charge the most; just as in Senator Michael Baume's rather unfortunate supermarket analogy it is not always the case, as any housewife can tell us, that the best product is the most expensive product. It is simply not the case. Nor is it the case that people are being deterred from undertaking medical training by the remuneration available. I am very well aware, both through my former responsibility as Minister for Education and in my current responsibility in respect of the inquiry into medical training, that all medical schools in Australia have long queues of students very anxious to get a place to train as doctors. I do not think that Senator Michael Baume's comments were very pertinent. With regard to the different costs of processing benefits in the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, I will supply that information for him on notice. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.35) —Senator Ryan would never convince the medical profession that the Government has not indulged in doctor bashing. There would be no way that she would ever be able to convince the people of Australia either that the Government has not done that. Senator Michael Baume was being very critical of- Senator Ryan —The people of Australia seem to prefer our health policies to those of Senator Michael Baume. Senator WALTERS —If Senator Ryan looked at the oft published polls or where doctors and politicians stand in the public's opinion, she would find that politicians are at the very bottom of the pile of professionals that people admire, while doctors are always at the top. I really feel that she ought to look to her laurels first. Senator Michael Baume referred to the gross incomes that Mr Gear and Senator Walsh keep referring to. It is very unjust and, indeed, not truthful for Senator Walsh and Mr Gear to keep referring to the gross earnings of doctors as they do. Recently a similar estimate was made of the gross incomes of Senator Walsh and Mr Gear. It would appear that Senator Walsh earns $437,095 a year and Mr Gear earns $187,479 a year. To cite those figures is citing the gross incomes of all other professions, not only the medical profession. It gives the impression that there is no cost and that that is the take home pay. That is not just and is grossly misleading. I am concerned about the pharmaceutical benefits processing office in Hobart. Can the Minister tell me how many people will lose their jobs if the decision is taken to close down the Hobart office and relocate it in Melbourne.? What will the additional delays be? In the past, the Tasmanian pharmaceutical benefits processing office has had a very good reputation and has been used by the Government on some occasions to assist other states to bring their work up to date. If the decision is taken to transfer the office to Melbourne, then I do not believe Tasmania's priorities will be the same. I do not believe that any problems that are normally sorted out by just a local phone call will be resolved with the same speed. It will be very detrimental to the pharmaceutical industry in Tasmania. I would like to know what the Minister feels about the questions I have asked. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.38) —What are the criteria the Government uses in making decisions such as the one raised by Senator Walters and the one I now raise concerning the discontinuance of agency arrangements by Medicare on the west coast of Tasmania? These matters were raised in Estimates Committee D. Can the Government answer this policy question? What criteria are used in determining whether these arrangements continue or not? It is clear in the latter event that there are problems on the west coast of Tasmania because of the cancellation of the generally worker controlled co-operative medical unions in that area. There are problems because of the distance from there to Hobart and the like. It is the sort of question that I do not suppose one could address at an Estimates committee meeting. Such questions are policy questions, I guess, or they are on the borderline. I raise this matter in the hope that some consideration can be given to it. There are great concerns on the west coast about this question. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.40) —During the hearings of Estimates Committee D there was a lengthy discussion of the circumstances in which the service on the west coast of Tasmania was closed. I cannot recall whether Senator Harradine was present. Senator Harradine —Yes, I raised it. I was there. Senator RYAN —I do not know whether I can add anything to what was said by the officers at that time. Although it might be desirable to have a processing office in every small town throughout Australia, it is simply not financially feasible for the Government to do that and, therefore, some sort of a judgment has to be made about the cost benefit of these operations. Should it be decided to close the Hobart office-I point out that I have already said in reply to an earlier question from Senator Walters that no such decision has been taken-the efficiency scrutiny review shows that approximately 250 of the 600 pharmacy positions would go over two years. That is a national figure. We do not have a breakdown of that. Senator Walters —How many employed in Tasmania? Senator RYAN —That question cannot be answered because no decision has been taken. The Government has decided there will be no redundancies. In response to Senator Walters's concern and Senator Harradine's concern about the efficiency of the operation from the point of view of the beneficiary, I point out that the use of claims transmissions speeds up payments. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.42) —Is the Minister saying that she has no idea of how many people who are employed in Tasmania will get the sack because she is closing the agencies? Senator Ryan —I said the opposite of that. I said that nobody will get the sack. Senator WALTERS —Can the Minister tell me how they will be employed if the office is closing down? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.43) —They would be redeployed to other duties in the Department, as happened on previous occasions. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.44) —The appropriation for the Department of Community Services and Health stands apart from other appropriations in that it bites largely into the Government's Budget. It is a huge sum of money. Of course, health matters strike the household of every Australian. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) would recall that on 24 September I asked a question without notice to which she gave a response, which I appreciated. The question concerned the position in which general practitioners (GPs) find themselves in in building a practice based essentially on preventive medicine philosophy rather than curative medicine philosophy. I cited the case of a doctor known to me in my local area, a Dr Mark Donohoe, who has been attempting to pursue this line of practice for some four years and has done so with extraordinary success in that he now has a practice of 4,000, whereas the national norm is, I believe, in the vicinity of 1,500 to 1,700. Some of the people who consult Dr Donohoe found that in a random pattern their claims were being refused, particularly for pathology. That leads us to the controversial area of screening, overcharging and so on. It raises the whole position in which general practitioners find themselves. I emphasise that Dr Donohoe is a general practitioner and is not in the area of what might broadly be described as alternative medicine. He practices as a general practitioner and people approach him as such only to find, to their surprise, that, although for some time they may have had their claims reimbursed, all of a sudden that stops and without explanation their claims for pathology charges are knocked back. This matter raises two significant areas of principle and, therefore, the whole question of how these costings in any way can be accurate unless these questions of principle are first answered. One principle concerns the overall attitude to a practitioner who is pursuing essentially a philosophy of preventive medicine and therefore believes professionally that certain charges are justified, only to find that he is interfacing with a bureaucracy that does not accept that strategy. So there is a problem for the practitioner. But a more important point of principle is that the people who present themselves to the general practitioners in good faith, and on the assumption that Medicare undertakes to provide all Australians with free medical services as a result of their having paid the one per cent levy, believe they are entitled to free medical services. But when they present themselves in good faith to a professional who has `General Practitioner' on his plate they find that their good faith does not carry through into the system. For some time they get their reimbursements then, all of a sudden, they do not. That denial is tied up with another difficult area-a squabble between a general practitioner who was pursuing a particular philosophy and the system and who finds himself in difficult circumstances. One of the 200 patients, of Dr Donohoe's 4,000 patients, who formed a patients action committee to defend him in his struggles in this regard against the Health Insurance Commission (HIC) decided to pursue the issue with the New South Wales Ombudsman. I have no doubt that the Ombudsman carried the matter to as satisfactory a conclusion as was possible. But it did not satisfy the patient. It did not change the situation in the slightest. However, the Ombudsman sent to the patient an eight-page computer printout of that person's medical history. It was a printout from the HIC. It accidentally came into the hands of this patient because he had made inquiries through the channels of the Ombudsman. This matter gives rise to the question: Is there sitting in a file somewhere a dossier on every Australian? Senator Puplick —Of course there is. Senator McLEAN —Senator Puplick says there is. We are harking back to a debate some weeks ago in relation to the HIC. That is precisely where we are; back in the arena of the HIC, of databases and of people discovering accidentally that such records exist-in this case, eight pages of them. We are back in the arena of whether the HIC is sufficiently credible in terms of its security-- Senator Michael Baume —And has given them to the police on occasions. Senator McLEAN —Those records have been provided, on occasions, to the police and have been published on the front pages of newspapers, through leaks from the HIC. I am posing three questions. Two are questions of principle and one is a question of specific cost. The first question is: Are the bureaucracy, the Department and the Government, in terms of claims, coming to grips with the whole philosophical interface between preventive versus curative medicine? Secondly, does the Department acknowledge that there is a clear breach of the principle of assured and guaranteed free health service provisions when people present in good faith to a GP only to have their claims denied because that GP is unacceptable to the system? We could probe the whole criteria of acceptability and unacceptability, but that is a can of worms we really do not want to open. The third question is: Do such dossiers exist on every registered claimant under Medicare? If so, what is the cost of compiling such dossiers, what is the accessibility, and to whom does that accessibility extend in relation to medical histories? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.51) —I will attempt to answer questions insofar as questions were posed but really the honourable senator was taking the opportunity to make some general observations. Senator McLean —There were three specific questions right at the end. Senator RYAN —There were three questions but I am not quite sure how specific they were. The honourable senator asked, in terms similar to these, whether the Government supports the philosophy of preventive care. We certainly do. Many of the activities of the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health are targeted towards preventive activities. That does not mean, of course, that every proposal put up by every doctor has to attract a payment under the Medicare schedule. The Government has taken the view, as the result of various advice, that multiphasic health screening is not as effective a form of preventive care as doctors ordering specific diagnostic tests. That is a decision the Government is entitled to make. No doubt there is some debate around that. The removal of this item from the schedule will not have any significant effect on the investigation of patients' conditions using conventional facilities. In other words, the conventional facilities are adequate. Maybe doctors can make some use of these other facilities but our advice has led us to the view that they are not justified under the Medicare benefit. As to whether people are being denied access to services, clearly they are not. Doctors can provide the services if they wish. However, if the Government judges those services as not appropriate for the Medicare schedule, they do not attract benefits. It is important to note the difference between access to a service and access to a benefit. Finally, the whole question of the Health Insurance Commission's security, dossiers and so forth, redolent of the debate on the Australia Card about which we heard so much in this place, has been raised again by the honourable senator. I simply point out, without going to all the issues which have been very extensively debated here and could be on another occasion, that the Government is paying out money on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia to people who have undergone certain medical procedures. It is therefore entitled, and has a responsibility, to ensure that proper records are kept for those payments and there is proper accountability. If, in the honourable senator's mind, that constitutes a dossier, so be it. But it would be impossible to run a universal health insurance system without having lists of the schedules under which claims were made. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(11.54) —My last question was specific to the cost of keeping such records. I would be happy for the Minister to take that on notice. It is an unreasonable question without notice. I am really asking what portion of that vast sum of money spent on public health goes into the processing of records that most people do not even know exist and whose security we have doubts about. I would like to respond to some of the Minister's comments. I do not accept that the system at large is sufficiently accommodating claims emanating from a medical practice built upon the philosophy of preventive medicine, because eventually those claims bump up against a formula, a list, a schedule that is built out of the conventional model. So there is a clash between the two approaches. For instance, I return to the practice of Dr Mark Donohoe. When he started his practice four years ago he philosophically said that he was going to prescribe as few drugs as possible. Most people would nod their heads and say that that would be a very responsible point from which to proceed. From that starting point he proceeded to practice his medicine. In order for him to abide by his philosophical approach of prescribing as few drugs as possible he considered that he had to use other services, one of which is pathology; but he uses virtually no pharmacology and little radiology. Claims for his services heap in the area associated with pathology but they trough in the areas associated with other dimensions of expense. The computer throws him up as being abnormal in the way in which he practices his medicine. Because he is abnormal in comparison with a conventional model he is cited for close examination and he immediately moves into a process of heavy dialogue and initially discussion and finally strong interaction, possibly legal interaction, with the system which he is trying to accommodate. So I do not accept that the system is acknowledging the legitimacy of alternative philosophies, philosophies which are espoused in our medical schools. My son is a doctor. He graduated from the University of Newcastle, which has deliberately created different approaches to the training of its doctors. When those doctors move out of the medical schools where they have been taught to espouse philosophies of preventive medicine into general practice and attempt to put that approach into practice they come up against a system which, for probably good bureaucratic reasons, is lagging behind in accommodating their requirements. So two people suffer: the practitioner and the patient. I do not accept the fact that people are being denied repayment. People who attend this doctor's surgery attend there in good faith. They get some of their pathology claims repaid and they do not get some of the others repaid. They are being denied. They are being denied in one week-- Senator Ryan —Payment, not service. Senator McLEAN —I never claimed they were being denied service. Many of them could turn their backs on that practice if they wished to but they are satisfied by it in all sorts of other ways which the system, I understand, cannot accommodate. They are denied their repayments, so they form action committees of 200 and hold public meetings. I attend those public meetings because they are pushing to resolve the conflict between two systems on behalf of the community at large. I do not cite it as a matter of creating difficulties; I cite it as a practical problem that the system at large, hopefully with the help of the Minister and her staff, will be able to resolve in the best interests of the community. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(11.59) —I will refer the remarks of Senator McLean to Dr Blewett for consideration in terms of future policy decisions. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.59) —The Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) would remember questions I raised in Senate Estimates Committee D about Medibank Private purchasing a 10 per cent interest in the private company, Health Care Corporation. Evidently, in March this year Medibank Private purchased a 10 per cent interest in this private company that operates private hospitals in New South Wales. Mr Murray, who I believe is the Assistant General Manager of the Finance Division of the Health Insurance Commission running Medicare, is one of the directors of this the Health Care Corporation. Indeed, the Manager of the Corporate Development Branch of Medicare is also a director. It seems to me quite incredible that a government instrumentality is now buying into a private hospital when it is so intimately connected with patients being taken into hospitals and providing health insurance. However, I asked a question that was not answered in the Estimates Committee hearings. I asked, `Is the Director of the Health Insurance Commission also a director of the Health Care Corporation?'. Because I used the wrong word, I was told no, there was nothing like that. But I now have an answer which says, `Yes, a member of the Health Insurance Commission is Chairman of the Health Care Corporation'. It seems incredible to me that a member of the Health Insurance Commission, which has a 10 per cent interest in the company, suddenly becomes Chairman of the Health Care Corporation. I was wondering whether the Minister could explain why that is so. Is it normal, in the business world, that a government instrumentality which has only a 10 per cent interest suddenly has a member who becomes chairman of a private company which operates private hospitals and provides other health services in New South Wales? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(12.01) —Senator Walters has been provided with the following information: Yes, a member of the Health Insurance Commission is Chairman of the Health Care Corporation. It is normal procedure where members of the Commission are involved in any commercial investment activity to: (a) declare their interests; and (b) withdraw from any further discussion. This procedure was followed with respect to the investment of Medibank Private funds in Health Care Corporation. As to Senator Walters's further question in regard to the election or the appointment-I do not know which it was-of the member of the Health Insurance Commission as Chairman of the Corporation, that information is not available at the moment. We will seek that information and let Senator Walters have it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.03) —The second question I asked was, `Does the Health Care Corporation operate any health provision services?'. The only answer I got was, `Yes'. I wonder whether the Minister could tell me what they are. Senator Ryan —We will get that information for Senator Walters. Senator WALTERS —Minister, this is the problem I have: I asked Mr Murray at the Estimates Committee exactly that question. He started by saying, `Yes, I believe so'. I went on to ask, `Which ones?' and he said that he thought there was one. He became very vague, which is fair enough. I am not being critical; he was not sure. So I said, `Well, because you are unsure, would you give it to me on notice? You sound doubtful. I do not want to push you and, if you are doubtful, you might be able to supply me with the information later'. The information I am supplied with is `Yes'. That is hardly information. Now I am told that I will still not get the answer, so I cannot ask questions about it. Again I am told it will be supplied to me. I do not believe that that is good enough, coming from the Department of Community Services and Health. I have asked the question in regard to what they were and I wanted that information. The only information I have been given is `Yes'. Now the Minister will not give me any other information that I can make any sensible questions out of. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.04) —My questions concern the Department of Community Services and Health and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1987-88. I raised this matter during Estimate committee hearings and the officers present were not able satisfactorily to answer my questions. They answered them somewhat later. I say somewhat later because the difficulty Estimates Committee D had in getting answers from the Department of Community Services and Health is a matter of record. I will not go into that, because it would waste the Committee's time. I refer to the major sums of money paid to the Medical Research Endowment Fund and allocated by way of other research grants that are dealt with on page 31 of an appendix to Appropriation Bill (No. 1). The amount of money allocated this year for medical research is $64,365,000. That amount of money is certainly not adequate for the many persons who are undertaking beneficial research. There is also a problem regarding the types of priorities that are given by the National Health and Medical Research Council in its recommendations to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) for grants. I refer to the area of early human life. The amounts of money being provided to grantees run into millions of dollars. Most of those grants are not used for the purpose of protecting life at that stage; they are for the purpose of devising situations in which life can be utilised by others at that stage. I use the word `utilised' very seriously because I believe that most doctors who adhere to the hippocratic oath consider that their job is to preserve life. Let me turn to a very substantial grant which was made on application by Professor Peter Singer, Dr Helga Kuhse and a Ms Gaze. The sum of $274,029 over three years has been allocated from taxpayers' funds for a project which is entitled `bioethical issues in the use of human foetal tissue, embryos and gamuts'. In this year the proposal, as I understand it, was for a grant of $91,343-not an insubstantial amount when one takes account of those researchers whose applications have been approved, but for whom money is not available for beneficial research. What is this proposed research all about and who is to conduct it? There has been a bit of toing and froing about this matter. We were told last year that the research was to be undertaken by Professor Swan. He was to be the chief investigator. It now turns out that Professor Swan is certainly not the chief investigator of the project; Professor Peter Singer is the chief investigator of the project. Although Professor Swan is still the Chairman of the Centre for Human Bioethics the research is being conducted by Professor Singer, Dr Kuhse and Ms Gaze. They are at the Centre for Human Bioethics; nevertheless, Professor Swan is not the chief investigator. I wonder why Professor Swan was included in the response previously. Was it because the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council was concerned that to mention the names of Professor Singer and Dr Kuhse would raise very grave concern and questions amongst people who might consider the application? I will detail to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health, Senator Ryan, the view of Professor Singer and Dr Kuhse. Their view involves, essentially, extreme utilitarianism. Their view is that the human embryo and the foetus have no intrinsic rights. I will detail to the Minister what Professor Singer said in his submission to the Senate Select Committee on Human Embryo Experimentation. It is very important that this be understood. At page 489 of the transcript, he said: Once an embryo may be capable of feeling pain, I believe that we need very strict controls over the experimentation which can be done with it. At this point, the embryo ranks, morally, with other creatures who are conscious but not self-conscious. Many non-human animals come into this category, and in my view they have often been unjustifiably made to suffer in scientific research. We should have stringent controls over research to ensure that this cannot happen to embryos, just as we should have stringent controls to ensure that it cannot happen to animals. That is, after sentience. He continued: The capacity to feel pain is enough to entitle a being to moral consideration. There are, however, different forms moral consideration can take. A right not to have pain inflicted upon one unnecessarily is not the same as a right to life. Finally, then, when does the developing person acquire a right to life? I would argue, following Michael Tooley, who has discussed this matter very thoroughly in his recent book Abortion and Infanticide that there must be something more: a sense of self, an awareness of the continuity of one's existence over time, a knowledge that one has a past and may have a future, and the capacity to have desires about that future. I think we can be confident that no embryo or foetus has these capacities. It is of course true that in this respect too birth does not mark a morally crucial dividing line, for the newborn infant equally lacks this kind of self-awareness. But this raises another topic, which I cannot go into now. But it is gone into in a book entitled Should the Baby Live? by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer. In that book they advocate, quite bluntly, euthanasia and infanticide-the killing of newborn babies. This is the group to which the Government has given $274,000 to study what research is appropriate for early human life. Let me quote from pages 196 and 197, the summation of Should the Baby Live?, by Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer, the deputy chief investigator and the chief investigator to whom all this money has been given. The book, in talking about legislation to enable infanticide to occur, states: The change in the law would do no more than allow parents to make, shortly after birth, the decision that they are now legally entitled to make before birth- those are their words; of course, it is incorrect- to end a life which has started out with difficulties so great that it is best that it not be prolonged. Indeed, because of what we have said about adoption or other care when the infant's life can be a satisfying one, the parents would continue to have less right to end the life after birth than they now have before birth, in countries where abortion is freely available. In one respect we do go further than the proposed Limitation of Treatment Bill. For the reasons already given, we would allow active as well as passive euthanasia to be carried out during the period before acceptance of the child into the community. The Minister must answer why the Government-I admit on the recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council, and I will refer to it in a minute-has given $274,029 of taxpayers' money, over a quarter of a million dollars, to these people. What are they to do? According to their application they will: (i) Continue to monitor the development of techniques for the use . . . of human foetal tissue . . . human gametes and embryos for scientific and clinical purposes; and (ii) Assess the impact on researchers and clinicians of existing and proposed restrictions on these experiments- note the words `Assess the impact on researchers and clinicians of existing and proposed restrictions on these experiments'- and on the development and use of such techniques- not the effect they are going to have on the human embryo, except as follows: (iii) Assemble information relevant to the stage at which the foetus may become capable of experiencing pain. Thus, the assumption is made that, prior to the capacity of the foetus to experience pain or, as presumed by Professor Singer, its awareness of its past and its future, everything is okay. That is what the group said on the scientific aspects. On the ethical aspects, it had this to say: We shall carry out research into the ethical and social aspects of the above-mentioned techniques, paying particular attention to: (iv) The use of ethics committees as a means of resolving ethical problems; their constitution, procedures, and modes of reasoning. We shall consider such committees at all levels, both within Australia and overseas, including bodies set up by national or state governments and research ethics committees at particular institutions; (v) Procedures for obtaining appropriate consent for the use of embryonic and foetal tissue; and (vi) The ethical issues raised by the possibility of inflicting pain on previable foetus. Can the Minister see the assumptions? They are assuming that their extreme utilitarian philosophy is the base line. We are talking about a very substantial amount of money being paid out to this group of people, much to the chagrin, might I add, of a large number of reputable medical scientists who are being denied their fair share of public funds for beneficial research. I refer now to what is contained under the heading `Legal'. Here comes the trap; this is what it is all about. The application states: (vii) To research existing law which may affect scientific research and researchers in this field, including legislation passed to regulate the areas such as- reference is made to the Victorian legislation- and to make suggestions for reform. Does the Committee see what that says? It says: To research existing law which may affect scientific research and researchers in this field, including legislation . . . The application goes on: (viii) To examine proposals for, and alternative available models of, schemes of regulation or prohibition of research into foetal tissue or in vitro human gametes or embryos, in Australia and overseas, that is, by institutional ethics committees, peer review, a licensing and monitoring body, or legislation with criminal sanctions. (ix) To review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the regulatory models identified to achieve the aims for which they are proposed, including making recommendations which would identify the desired model or models. I want to know from the Minister why these people have been given this enormous grant. Were they even an appropriate group to be given the grant, how can it be considered that three years is required for the undertaking of putting those things together? Is it not appropriate for the Minister to respond to these questions during the Committee's examination of these estimates? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.20) —I will not interfere with Senator Harradine's questioning because I think it is appropriate that the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) should answer him straight away. But I ask the Minister whether I can be provided with the information that her officers said that they would get for me during the lunch break so that I can assess the answers and be able to ask questions on them. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(12.21) —In response to Senator Walters's question, the officers will do their best to get the information as soon as possible. In response to Senator Harradine's question regarding the grant to Dr Peter Singer and his associates, the honourable senator is obviously in possession of a great deal of information about that grant. In fact, he has the grant forms in which the details of the project are set out. Indeed, he has relayed a lot of these details to the Committee in the course of his asking the question. He asked why the Minister-in this case Dr Blewett-agreed to the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) when it recommended this grant. I cannot look into the mind of Dr Blewett. I will refer the matter to him, but I would imagine that he has accepted the advice of an expert body in this respect, as indeed Ministers do in many respects on the question of scientific research. Dr Blewett may have something to add or he may wish to refer the matter for further comment to the NHMRC, which gave the original advice. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.23) —I will come very shortly to the question of the Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) and its expert advice in terms of the answers that I have been given in respect of the working party on the establishment of registers for genetic disorders and how it is terribly important for the Government that it know where the MREC is taking it. Before I do that, so that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) is again perfectly well aware of the attitudes of the chief investigator of this project, in respect of which over a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayers' money has been given, I would like to indicate where he would draw the line as to questions of rights. I refer to evidence given by Professor Singer and questioning that was directed to him when he was giving evidence to the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985. A great deal was said on pages 496 to 499 of the transcript. But in deference to honourable senators, I will not read all of the evidence. Professor Singer said: I do not believe any embryos ever have a right to live as embryos. The Chairman, Senator Michael Tate, commented: The same applies to the young child in your paper, as I understand it. Professor Singer said: If we move away from the question of the wrongness of inflicting pain which is a separate issue, in my view a right to life, specifically, is something that only develops as a being develops a capacity to understand itself as existing over time and therefore the capacity to have any kinds of wants or desires about its life. In other words, it is only at the point that it matters to the being whether it goes on living; that it can understand that notion of whether or not it goes on living. The Chairman asked: A mentally defective person who is not able to reach a certain stage of awareness, self-reflection and appreciation of his or her intrinsic worth would not have a right to life? Professor Singer-This is a very severe level of mental retardation which we are talking about. It is obviously not that possessed by Down's syndrome children, for example, because they are clearly capable of that. CHAIRMAN-You can assume that I am asking a question about a person who is unable to reach the level of self-awareness that you posit, as creating intrinsic worth between you and me. Professor Singer-Such a being, in my view, has no intrinsic right to life. I wonder whether the Government realised what its so-called expert body, the Medical Research Ethics Committee-which supported the Singer application to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which in turn failed to examine it adequately-was getting into, particularly in view of the fact that this money is being used to attack a legislative foundation for the protection of the rights of individuals in our society. What is happening in this case is that money is being given to this group so it can attack our responsibility in Parliament to preserve those individual rights. The National Health and Medical Research Council recommended to the Medical Research Ethics Committee that assessments be done. In the Committee I asked whether that grant was made to Professor Swan and on what basis. I went on to ask whether any MREC members could have suggested or inspired the application from Swan and his colleagues. The interesting answer that came back from the Department did not include the words `and his colleagues'. I had it on reliable authority that Singer and Kuhse had been asked by the MREC to develop this application. I said `Swan and his colleagues'. When the note came back from the Department it said: Senator Harradine asked if any MREC or MREC Members could have suggested/inspired the application from Swan? The answer was: All persons who were members of the MREC in 1984, and who are contactable at present, has been asked the question. All have denied any involvement with Professor Swan regarding this matter. That is not what I asked. I turn to the MREC and the question concerning registers of genetic disorders or, as they say, inherited disorders. In the Estimates Committee I asked whether a committee of inquiry had been established to consider the question of registers of genetic disorders. When I asked that question in the Estimates Committee, an answer from the departmental officer was: As a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council, I am at this stage not aware of this. I do not know what happens at these National Health and Medical Research Council meetings-whether they rubber stamp everything that comes up from the MREC. The answer the Committee has now been given in writing reads: There has been no Committee of inquiry and there have been no investigations around Australia. The Department is informed that the NHMRC at its meeting in November 1986 requested its Medical Research Ethics Committee . . . to give priority for consideration of this topic, as it was aware of the ethical problems associated with the keeping of registers and family records of patients with genetically determined diseases. The Council agreed- after having said that there was no committee, listen to this- to a working party of MREC being established to examine the ethical issues. What is the difference between a committee and a working party? I do not want to listen to semantics from departmental officers when before a committee. I want to hear the clear truth. It was said that there was no committee. But a working party has been established and its terms and membership were included in the answer, which, in any event, I knew. But I am grateful for this being placed on the public record. I then asked: Would not the Council- that is, the National Health and Medical Research Council- agree that the question of registers which record the names of patients and families in Australia with inherited disorders raises fundamental questions of direct interest to legislators? The response was: While the Department cannot comment on behalf of the NHMRC, it is noted that the NHMRC- it dobbed the NHMRC in- has recognised the need for an ethical framework. The word `ethical' is underlined. The Department, I think properly, continued: It would certainly be timely to consider any legislative implications once the issues have been identified. I asked: Just whom did the committee of inquiry consult with in their practically unpublicised investigations? The response was: A press release informing the public of the establishment of the Working-Party was issued on April this year . . . Reference was also made to the Working Party in the MREC's May Newsletter. The Department is informed that it is anticipated, in accordance with previous practice, that public submissions will be called for by the MREC. Ultimately it is expected that ethical guidelines will need to be prepared. It is very significant that `ethical guidelines' and `ethical framework' are mentioned. There is no mention of legislation in that context because that is what is being done with all these questions. These are major questions of public policy. The pro-experimentation scientists and the Medical Research Ethics Committee establishment are trying to usurp them and ensure that these matters of major public policy do not come before the Parliament to be determined. My final questions were: What is the envisaged purpose of creating these registers? Is it proposed that these registers will be integrated into one network? The answer was: The Department is informed that the purpose of creating registers is one of the topics being clarified by the MREC, and that in general, the primary purpose is to improve the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of genetic disorders. I emphasise the word `prevention' because a prominent member of the working party is Professor David Danks of the Murdoch Institute for Research in Birth Defects. In submission No. 1 to the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, he declared precisely what he meant by `prevention' and what was clearly meant by `prevention' in that answer by the then Department of Health. I quote from page 3 of his submission to the Senate Select Committee: At present the most effective strategy available for preventing birth defects is by diagnosis of the genetic disease in a foetus at 16 weeks gestation by a process called amniocentesis or at ten weeks by chorion villus sampling, followed by termination of a pregnancy that has proven to be affected by a serious genetic disease. That is what is meant by `prevention'. In regard to treatment, in the same submission, Professor Danks, who, let us remember, is a member of the working party, under the heading `Gene therapy in the early embryo' said: This would involve the insertion of a normal gene into a defective embryo to correct the genetic defect. This process is technically possible already and genes inserted into a one cell fertilised mouse egg have been shown to function satisfactorily in the mouse that is subsequently born. There is every reason to believe that the same process could be carried out in humans. However, there is a simple logical reason for arguing that this process will never be used in the treatment of human genetic disease. Couples who are at risk of having children with genetic disease run either 25% or 50% risks, never 100%. Consequently, one would need some way of distinguishing a fertilised egg- he is really referring to a human embryo- which will result in a normal child from one which would produce a baby with a disease. If this testing were available, then surely one would merely implant the fertilised egg which will produce a normal baby, and not use the defective fertilised egg. I do not believe that early embryo gene therapy needs serious consideration among the range of experimentation on early human embryos that may be desirable in the future. We have to be very clear about what is being attempted. The Government, in its answers, has not explained what track we are going down. (Extension of time granted) The last time registers of genetic taints were established was in nazi Germany. A very interesting book by Robert Jay Lifton, entitled The Nazi Doctors, which I picked up in Washington only about a month ago while doing work in this area, describes the establishment in Germany in 1934 of registers, card indexes, of genetic taints-lists of families with known genetic disorders. We now know-they did not know then-that there are about 4,000 genetic disorders. None of us is really perfect. Which genetic disorders will be deemed to fit into the MREC's plan? That is not explained in the answers I have been given. In Germany people with genetic disorders were brought before courts, which were declared to be secret for the so-called protection of the people brought before them. As a result, according to Robert Jay Lifton, some 200,000 people were sterilised. Martin Bormann suggested that the criteria for sterilisation went to the question of whether a person had anti-state ideas. Sterilisation probably is not what is proposed by the MREC establishment circles. What is being proposed is the establishment of a filtering system in which IVF and other processes will be used. Persons with histories of genetic disorders will be encouraged to have their early human embryos DNA-probed and, if they are deemed to be abnormal, action will be taken. As this is an Estimates examination, a full-scale debate on this matter cannot take place. The embryo experimentation scientists and their allies in the MREC are trying desperately to keep this question from the representatives of the people in the Parliament. I ask the Minister what the bioethics unit of the Department of Community Services and Health is doing at present. Has it, for example, been involved in developing the legislation that is currently before the South Australian Parliament, which includes in its definition of `human reproductive material' semen and ovum-that is, the gametes-and a human embryo? That is interesting, is it not? How it can be scientifically sustained is beyond me. How can one include in a definition of `human reproductive material' a human embryo? Puberty comes pretty early these days, apparently. It is also beyond me how the whole question of human embryo experimentation can be sent off to a non-elected, appointed committee which is heavily loaded with medical and scientific personnel. The Minister might be able to confirm whether she has been having discussions in South Australia about this matter or whether that is being done by the bioethics unit of the Department of Community Services and Health. She might be able to tell us whether the mature decisions and conclusions of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill with which I was not entirely happy have been drawn to the attention of the South Australian Government. Has their attention been drawn to the major finding of the Committee that there is a need for legislative protection of human embryos from destructive, non-therapeutic experimentation which frustrates their development from fertilisation onwards? The other question I want to ask the Minister about the bioethics unit of the Department of Community Services and Health is whether it is proposed that the national committee adopt the recommendation proposed by the Senate Select Committee that it be bound by the statutory principle which would protect the human embryo from destructive, non-therapeutic experimentation. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(12.44) —Senator Harradine has put forward his views on the research project that was the subject of his earlier comments. As I said then, I will refer those views to the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) who may wish to refer them further to the National Health and Medical Research Council. In reply to Senator Harradine's question about the bioethics unit of the Department of Community Services and Health, the unit is a monitoring body. Clearly, it is not in a position to make policy on anything. To my knowledge it has not been involved in preparation of the South Australian legislation, although its monitoring brief has meant that it has examined and is aware of the legislation. I have not had the opportunity yet to have discussions with the South Australian Government about its legislation, although I intend to do so. I have had discussions with the Victorian Government and with people involved in the bioethics debate in Victoria. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Colston) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I shall report progress. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly-- Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice. Will the Minister reaffirm the undertaking given on behalf of the Government by the Prime Minister on 11 August that police officers appearing before the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody will be provided with legal assistance by the Government in the same way as assistance is to be provided to the relatives of those Aborigines who died in custody? Senator TATE —Honourable senators will have received representations from the Police Federation of Australia during the course of yesterday concerning the possible financial assistance to be given to that organisation and individual police officers from the States and the Northern Territory should they be required to appear or seek leave to appear before the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. I had the pleasure of being called on yesterday by the National Secretary of the Federation and three delegates from its conference which was being held in Canberra, and we had a most amicable discussion, during which they put the sorts of requests which are inherent in Senator Chaney's question. As a result of those conversations, I immediately had discussions with Mr Gerry Hand, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I have had discussions with the office of the Prime Minister. I am able to say that the Government is disposed to respond favourably to any formal application for financial assistance by the Police Federation of Australia, should it be given leave to appear before Mr Justice Muirhead. The fact is the Federation is the peak body of the various associations and unions of police officers and personnel throughout Australia, and there is obviously a strong analogy between its position and that of the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service as a national body. It is possibly, if I may say so, somewhat stronger in that it is the police officers and prison officers who may be in jeopardy as a result of the findings of the Commission. Should a formal request be made-and I emphasise that I am surprised to find that a formal request has not been made, but perhaps this is interlinked with whether leave to appear is given by Mr Justice Muirhead-I am able to say that the Government would look upon such formal request for financial assistance by that peak body very favourably. As to individual police officers, I think that in this situation the Prime Minister-it may have been the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister overseas-wrote to the Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in order to ascertain from them what joint funding might be undertaken in relation to the Royal Commission, it being a fact that the Royal Commission is supported by joint arrangements between the Federal Government, the State governments and the Government of the Northern Territory. That exchange of letters initiated by the Acting Prime Minister goes to the question of cost sharing and of State governments funding the legal costs associated with the appearance of their officials before the Royal Commission. At the moment, to my knowledge, only two have responded-the Premier of Western Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Until all of those replies are in and State Premiers give an indication of their preparedness to support some of the costs associated with the Royal Commission and the provision of financial assistance to their police officers-I include prison officers and other custodial personnel-it is somewhat premature to make any undertaking on behalf of the Federal Government. In fact, in all other royal commissions of which I can think the States have normally borne the responsibility for the appearance of their officials, and I would think that most States will respond with that precedent in mind. Senator CHANEY —I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for his response and welcome the positive nature of it. However, I seek some clarification. The Prime Minister's original statement was that assistance for the police would be financed in the same way as assistance for the relatives of Aborigines who have died in custody. What is the nature of the assistance being provided for the relatives? I stress that I support such assistance. Is that being provided on the basis of support for individual relatives, or for some organisation representing the relatives? I am not clear on that point, and it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify it for me. Senator TATE —It may need further refinement but, as I understand it, all the families of Aboriginals who have died in custody are to be given financial assistance, so it will be assistance to each individual family. But there are also some peak bodies and organisations which will have a watching brief and will supplement that. I think that the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service, in addition to being a peak body with its own role before the Royal Commission, will also undertake the task of distributing financial assistance to individual families, but I am not sure about that. There is a two-tier approach in that respect. Senator BEAHAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance and relates to the level of public sector expenditure on current transfer payments in Australia. Is the Minister aware that, in a speech on Monday to a conference on smaller government, Mr Neville Wran claimed that only two Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries spend proportionately less than Australia does on current transfer payments? Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case? Does this suggest that, contrary to the oft repeated propaganda of Australia's New Right, Australia already has a small government in comparison with other democratic countries? Senator WALSH —I have seen a copy of the speech which Mr Wran delivered two days ago, on Monday. In using the term `current transfer payments', he was referring principally to social security pensions and other social security payments such as unemployment benefits, current grants to non-profit organisations and public debt interest-in other words, those Commonwealth expenditures which are just transferred to other persons or bodies in the non-government sector. It is worth quoting the key paragraph in Mr Wran's speech, which was: In the result, as a proportion of GDP, Australia doesn't spend a lot on public sector activities compared with other developed democratic countries. Indeed, if one looks at government expenditures on transfer payments, for instance, only Iceland and Turkey spent proportionately less than Australia. I have checked out the figures used in that claim by Mr Wran and, on the most recent data available to me, I can confirm that they are correct. I have here a table of the majority of OECD countries which shows the percentage of gross domestic product which is transfer payments; and in the calendar year 1984, Iceland had 9.2 per cent and Australia 16.5 per cent. The highest figure was that of the Netherlands, at 39.7 per cent, which is more than double the Australian level. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- CURRENT TRANSFER PAYMENTS* AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT FOR SELECTED OECD COUNTRIES Country 1979 1984** % % Turkey ... 9.7 NA Iceland ... NA 9.2 Australia ... 13.4 16.5 Finland ... 16.2 16.8 Japan ... 14.4 17.3 United States ... 14.1 17.6 Switzerland ... 17.0 17.9 Spain ... 15.9 19.7 Greece ... 13.4 21.0 Portugal ... 15.9 22.6 Canada ... 16.4 23.0 United Kingdom ... 20.0 23.1 Germany ... 20.9 24.1 Norway ... 27.4 26.0 Austria ... 24.2 26.3 Luxembourg ... 27.6 31.7 Sweden ... 28.4 32.1 Denmark ... 24.2 32.0 Italy ... 25.0 32.5 France ... 27.2 33.0 Belgium ... 28.5 35.0 Netherlands ... 37.0 39.7 * Calculated as the difference between current expenditure on goods and services and current disbursements, where current disbursements comprise current expenditure on goods and services plus current transfers and payment of property income. ** Uses latest available data which for most countries is 1984-85. Sources: OECD, Economic Survey of Netherlands, Paris, March, 1986. OECD, Economic Survey of Germany, Paris, June 1983. OECD, National Accounts, 1986 Edition. Senator WALSH —In other words, what Mr Wran said is certainly confirmed by the available statistics but, as Mr Wran did say, that does not mean that we should not be continually striving to make the public sector more effective and efficient. The claim that Mr Wran made and the figures which confirm his claim show quite decisively that the propaganda of what has come to be called the New Right about the size of the public sector in Australia being too big is clearly nonsense. In fact there is no identifiable correlation between the size of the public sector and any index of economic performance or economic efficiency. To that should be added, of course, the point that those countries that have a very high proportion of transfer payments-countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, Italy, France and so on-also have a level of taxation which is commensurate with the level of public expenditure. The figures destroy the myth being peddled by the Andrew Hays, the Ian McLachlans and, of course, the John Stones of this world. Senator MESSNER —I refer the Minister for Transport and Communications to the answer he gave on 17 November to my question about a breach by him of an undertaking given by his predecessor, Mr Duffy, concerning the confidentiality of information on the advertising revenue of radio stations. The Minister will recall that he said: I have not yet had an opportunity to see for myself what the terms of that original communication- that, of course, was Mr Duffy's letter to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal- might have been and to satisfy myself that what I did say publicly may arguably have been at odds with it. Has the Minister considered the matter further and does he now agree that he breached the undertaking given by Mr Duffy? In view of the fact that the information provided by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to Mr Duffy was conditional on the assurance that the information would not be published or divulged in any way, has the Minister received any subsequent views from the Chairman of the Broadcasting Tribunal on the Minister's breach of confidentiality? If so, what are those views? Further, is it a fact that the Government's establishment fee system will make it more difficult for the Broadcasting Tribunal to obtain much needed information from broadcasters-in addition to that information which is presently required to be supplied under the Broadcasting Act, given that the information is provided on an in confidence basis because of the commercial sensitivities of it? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have had an opportunity to look at the relevant correspondence on this. It is clear that Mr Duffy gave an undertaking of confidentiality. That was in a very different context, of course, from that which has been involved in recent times where the matter at issue has been the fee payable for the establishment of a new licence and the basis for the calculation of that. The particular context in which Mr Duffy was responding was that of information required for planning purposes, and, in particular, to determine those markets in respect of which either new licences or supplementary licences, as the case may be, would be called for. Obviously, in a planning context detailed information as to the financial performance of particular licensees was highly sensitive. It was in that context that Mr Duffy gave that undertaking. As I have said, I was not aware of that undertaking when I gave the information that I did at the time of announcing the establishment fee system. That was in the context of identifying the gross earnings from the particular service areas in question as a basis for enabling people interested in the new licence fee system to know in general terms-I did not express it with any great precision-what they would be up for so far as the establishment fee was concerned. The new legislation will make it perfectly clear that there can be no confidentiality in respect of that class of information. It is at odds with the whole purpose of the legislation, which is designed to set an establishment fee based on the revenue performance of the area in question. I regret that there was an inadvertent breach by me of what could be seen as an undertaking relevant to the present circumstances as well as to the previous ones. I hope that in all the circumstances that will be understood, and the reasons why it occurred will be appreciated. I have had a communication from Miss O'Connor on behalf of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal because she is understandably concerned about her capacity to continue to get confidential information if there is any risk of that confidentiality being breached. I explained in a letter in reply the particular circumstances which led to that happening-the very different context in which the information was sought and given publicly-and referred to the fact that the legislation will create a different regime for this in the future. I hope that on the basis of that the matter can be appropriately closed. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to widespread publicity given to remarks made by the Queensland Health and Environment Minister, Mr Mike Ahern, that attempts by Premier Bjelke-Petersen to remove Police Minister Bill Gunn and others are directly related to the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into Possible Illegal Activities and Associated Police Misconduct? In view of the widespread public suspicion that attempts will be made by the Queensland Government to at least muzzle the Fitzgerald inquiry, will he assure the Senate that the National Crime Authority (NCA) will make available to that inquiry all information that it has on organised crime, drug dealing, vice, illegal gambling and SP betting in Queensland, whether or not it involves politicians, judges or others in high places? What measures are in place or are contemplated for liaison and information exchange between the National Crime Authority and the Fitzgerald inquiry? Senator TATE —My attention has been drawn to comments made by the Queensland Health and Environment Minister, Mr Mike Ahern, that he believed that the attempt to dismiss, in particular, the Police Minister, Mr Bill Gunn, from the Queensland Ministry was in fact linked to his, and no doubt the Premier's, premonitions about the outcome and the course of proceedings of the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry. Senator Jones asked whether the NCA will undertake and is undertaking inquiries covering much the same ground as the Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry. I have already indicated to the Senate that the National Crime Authority has a joint reference with the Queensland Government where a number of matters overlap with those currently being examined by the Fitzgerald inquiry. I do not think I have told the Senate before, but in fact the National Crime Authority reference-when I say `reference', I mean that there is available to the Authority plenary and extraordinary powers beyond those normally available to police forces in Australia-includes matters such as the cultivation and supply of Indian hemp, drugs of addiction and other prohibited drugs, illegal gambling, extortion, threats of violence, violence, murder, attempted murder and conspiracy to murder. So from the outset of the Fitzgerald inquiry there obviously has been much common ground between the two bodies in regard to the material they are investigating. Further, I can assure the Senate on the basis of advice I have received from the National Crime Authority that it has actively sought to assist the Fitzgerald inquiry. In fact, Mr Fitzgerald has written to me thanking me for the prompting and urging which I have given to the Federal law enforcement agencies, including the NCA and the Australian Federal Police, in this regard. Senator McKiernan —Well deserved. Senator TATE —I thank the honourable senator. There is close and continuing co-operation at the highest levels between the Fitzgerald inquiry and the National Crime Authority on matters of mutual interest. The National Crime Authority is providing its assistance to the Fitzgerald inquiry in a timely and useful way. Further, I can also advise the Senate of development over the last week or so in that the Assistant Commissioner, Operations, of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Peter Lamb, has, with the agreement of Major-General Grey, the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, held extensive discussions with the Fitzgerald inquiry in recent days. As a result the Federal Police will be actively assisting the Commission of Inquiry through its extensive international officer liaison network and will undertake inquiries in Australia in relation, in particular, to tracing the movements of cash. Senator POWELL —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I draw the Minister's attention to an article in today's Australian newspaper indicating that the Western Australian Department of Agriculture plant breeding program has succeeded, where Europe, Canada and China have failed, in developing a strain of rape seed which is not only polyunsaturated but also has a longer storage life than traditional oils. In light of this substantial achievement by an Australian public plant breeding body, and in light of a further report in the same newspaper indicating that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation might be added to the list of privatisation targets, will the Minister give a commitment that, now that Australia has plant variety rights like many of those other, unsuccessful, countries in this project, our efficient and effective public breeding sector will not lose funding or be privatised? Senator WALSH —I have seen the report. I do not know whether it is correct or not although, given the record of the newspaper in which it is published, I would like to have some independent corroboration before I accept it as being correct. Assuming it is correct, Senator Powell seems to have concluded with the sort of logic which is characteristic of the `fairies at the bottom of the garden' party that, because one country has plant variety rights legislation or has had in the past, and another country has not, everything in the outcome of plant breeding in those countries is attributable to that difference. The reference to plant variety rights reminded me that Senator Powell was one of the passionate opponents of plant variety rights, along with all the rest of the Lygon Street farmers, who have two factors in common: one a propensity to swallow conspiracy theories and the other a profound ignorance of agriculture. I have been asked whether I will give any guarantees that public breeding institutions will not lose funding. No, I will not give any such guarantee, although I know that the `fairies at the bottom of the garden' party believes, among other things, that people should get two pensions and free board and lodging as well. It is not responsible for any Finance Minister-- Senator Chaney —No economic growth. You must not have any economic growth. Senator WALSH —And no economic growth, yes-and an increasing population. They might not believe in that, but that is happening anyway. That, therefore, means a steady decline in per capita real income. I will not give any such assurance. Indeed, it would not be responsible for a Finance Minister to give those sorts of assurances because a competing claim for limited government funds should be assessed on its own merits and against the judgment of the total availability of government funds at any particular time. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer her to an article in the Business Review Weekly of 6 November entitled `Bureaucratic Push May Backfire'. Will the Minister comment on assertions in that article that, firstly, reporting requirements under the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act will put unreasonable pressure on business and that, secondly, child care will become a business responsibility under the Act? Senator RYAN —I am pleased to respond to Senator Crowley's question by saying that the claims made in that article are quite unfounded. The Affirmative Action Agency, in response to requests for assistance from industry, undertook earlier this year a pilot test of a draft public report format for reports required under the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act. The draft report format was piloted with 10 companies from a representative cross-section of industry. After a thorough process of review and evaluation many sections of the public report were either deleted or significantly changed in the final format and, in particular, the questions quoted in the Business Review Weekly article have either been deleted or substantially changed. The final format provides companies with the opportunity to describe the processes they underwent in implementing their affirmative action programs. It specifically states that companies are free to adapt it to suit their needs. I think it is important for the Senate to realise that the Affirmative Action Agency has taken meticulous care to fulfil its responsibility to consult with business on issues relating to the development and implementation of affirmative action and especially to avoid the imposition of any unreasonable pressure on business. The work-related child care study also referred to in the article is not intended to enforce child care on employers and has no connection with the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act. It is being undertaken by the Office of the Status of Women to facilitate the dissemination of information to employers, unions and community groups about work-related child care and it is being overseen by a steering committee representing, among others, the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to previous answers he has given the Senate on the alarming increase in industrial unrest in the steel industry, answers which, stripped of their rhetoric, boil down to the fact that he and the Government refuse to take any direct action to tackle the problem of union disruption of the steel plan, particularly at the Port Kembla works. Has the Minister seen the report, which I hold up, tabled yesterday in the House of Representatives from that chamber's Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, chaired by a Government member and with a Government majority, which strongly criticises the failure of the unions to meet their commitments under the steel plan? Has he further noted the Committee's concern that the Steel Industry Authority is no longer monitoring union adherence to the plan and that the Authority has not been effective in halting the escalating level of industrial disputation? I ask whether the Government supports the Committee's conclusion that: Unless the unions are prepared to meet their commitments, the benefits of the plan can quickly be eroded. It is now up to the national union bodies to become more involved and to obtain greater commitments from its members. Finally, will the Government bring pressure on the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to obtain those commitments? Senator BUTTON —I think Senator Lewis is taking advantage of Question Time in order to attack me. That is a dreadful abuse of Question Time. It is a dreadful thing for any member of the Opposition to do. I answer his question feeling somewhat aggrieved and hurt by the tone in which he addressed this question to me. I have not seen the report which the honourable senator has brandished, but I have seen some reports of it. I more or less know what is in it. The honourable senator draws certain conclusions from it. I cannot comment directly on the middle part of his very long speech, but I do broadly agree with the conclusions of the Committee. If I can help the honourable senator in this sense, let me state what I think the point of his question is and then answer it. The point of the question is that the honourable senator suggests, first of all, that the Government refuses to take direct action against the unions concerned. I think the honourable senator means the Port Kembla branch of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. Yes, that has been so. The Government does not see benefits for the industry in its interfering directly in the relationship between the employers and the employees in the Port Kembla steel industry. In the last six months there have been proceedings in the New South Wales Industrial Tribunal to deregister the Port Kembla branch of the Ironworkers Association. With those proceedings in train, it would certainly not be proper for the Government to intervene in that matter. We were informed of that action being taken by the company, as was the Steel Industry Authority. In answering a question earlier I said that on 28 October the steel industry met with both the unions and the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd (BHP) regarding the industrial relations problems-not the other problems-at Port Kembla. I do not know when the Committee wrote that report, but I would not think that the speed of publication here would have enabled it to have taken into account that meeting on 28 October or what has happened since. Yesterday or the day before the Australian Council of Trade Unions had a meeting with the company to discuss these issues at Port Kembla. As I have said to Senator Lewis on a number of other occasions, I think that although the situation is difficult at Port Kembla, in the words of a BHP spokesman, it is improving, and I do not think it should be exacerbated or the possibility for an improving situation should be made worse-I cannot think of the correct word-- Senator Sheil —Exacerbated. Senator BUTTON —Exacerbated, if you like-I thank the honourable senator-by heavy rhetoric from a Government spokesman or, indeed, from the Liberals in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. I think we should just let these matters take their course for a week or two. I think it is important that there has been ACTU intervention in the matter. I am hopeful there will be a successful outcome. If there is not, other steps may have to be taken. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health. I refer to the Government's policy on assessment of geriatrics. Is the development of geriatric assessment procedures a major priority in the community services portfolio in order to help contain the spiralling costs of aged care in Australia? What progress has been made toward the implementation of geriatric assessment in Queensland? Would geriatric assessment be available, for example, in that State for a person such as a New Zealand born 76-year-old male peanut farmer and public sector executive? Senator RYAN —Senator Maguire will be pleased to hear that care of Australia's aged population is a high priority in the Department of Community Services and Health. Nursing homes are for people who require 24-hour nursing care. Only a small number of elderly people fall into this category. Appropriate assessment of older people is the key to ensuring that nursing home care is available to those who really need it. Those who do not are assisted to find more appropriate forms of care. To help achieve these ends, the Commonwealth is piloting in Victoria and the Northern Territory the granting to assessment services of the authority to approve nursing home admission. Queensland has been one of the slower States to respond to the development of assessment services. Currently the Commonwealth is funding assessment services in Toowoomba, south-west Queensland, Cairns, Maryborough and Nambour. Ministerial approval is about to be sought for the funding of services in Townsville, Mackay, Roma, Charleville, north Brisbane and south Brisbane. So it is fair to say that the Commonwealth is certainly making what contribution it can to the assessment of geriatric care needs in Queensland and the rest of Australia. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of all honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a delegation from the National Assembly of Thailand, led by His Excellency the President of the Senate, Dr Ukrit Mongkolnavin. On behalf of all senators I extend to the delegation a warm welcome and trust that their stay in Australia is a success. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator ALSTON —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Is the Government aware of the results of a recent authoritative poll conducted in Moscow by a French polling organisation which showed that 53 per cent of people favoured a total withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, with only 27 per cent opposed? Is it a fact that, despite Mr Gorbachev's July 1985 Vladivostok promise and regular renewed Soviet commitments thereafter, there has been only a cosmetic recycling of troop numbers? In these circumstances is it true, as I have been reliably informed, that the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, has decided not to include the question of Afghanistan on the agenda for his forthcoming trip to the Soviet Union? If this is so, will the Government publicly explain the reasons for this pusillanimous approach? Otherwise, will the Government give a firm and unequivocal commitment to maintaining public and diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Union so that the five million Afghan refugees who constitute a third of the world's total refugee population will be able to return to their native country as soon as possible? Senator GARETH EVANS —I do not know of the substance, if any, to the suggestion about the removal of this item from the agenda for the talks. I will seek information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the Prime Minister and advise accordingly. But what I can say is that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that Australia, both publicly and privately, has not been mounting a very vigorous and continued campaign, if one wants to put it in those terms, and certainly expressing views very vigorously on the situation in Afghanistan. I remind Senator Alston, who prides himself on following such matters very closely, that Australia's permanent representative to the United Nations in New York delivered Australia's statement on Afghanistan to the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 November, just two or three weeks ago, during the General Assembly's annual debate on that subject. He announced Australia's intention to support Pakistan's draft resolution calling for the withdrawal of all Soviet forces from Afghanistan, as we have done since the resolution was first moved in 1980. In doing that, the Australian statement condemned in the strongest terms the continuing occupation of Afghanistan. It laid the blame for the sad plight of the Afghan people directly at the door of the Soviet Union. It called for an early political solution which would permit the Afghan people to exercise their fundamental right of self-determination. The statement sought to encourage the Soviet Union to take concrete steps to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan, noting that no delegation would be happier than Australia's if the Afghan item subsequently were able to be withdrawn from the General Assembly's agenda. It pointed out that genuine movements in the near future by the Soviet Union toward a political settlement in Afghanistan could accelerate the process upon which Australia has embarked recently of improving its relations and broadening the base of its contacts with the Soviet Union. There could not be a more explicit condemnation of the situation than that, combined with some constructive suggestions as to how the solution of the problem might be advanced. It is absolute nonsense to suggest, as Senator Alston has done, that there has been some back-pedalling or resistance on the part of the Australian Government to pursuing this matter openly and vigorously. Senator ALSTON —I ask a supplementary question. Do I take it from the tone of the Minister's response that, come the next anniversary of the Soviet invasion, 27 December next, the Foreign Minister will be prepared to specifically condemn the Soviet invasion, although he has specifically refused to do so on earlier anniversaries? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have no idea what the situation will be come the next anniversary of the invasion. All I can say is that the claim that the Foreign Minister has failed to condemn has been the subject of previous debate in this place and when the allegation has been raised it has been shown to be absolutely false. The Opposition has been twisting things out of context and generally utterly misrepresenting the very strong position this Government and its Foreign Minister have consistently taken. Senator ZAKHAROV —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health been drawn to a letter in the September issue of News, the journal of the national Epilepsy Association of Australia, in which a Dr Andrew Black, medical adviser to the Epilepsy Association of South Australia, criticises the changes made to the rebate to patients for visits to private specialist consultant physicians. The letter implies that people suffering epilepsy and other chronic illnesses are being treated unfairly and may be put at risk by the change. Can the Minister comment on the points raised in the letter? Has Dr Black given an accurate outline of the changes to the schedule and the likely effect on patients of these changes? Senator RYAN —Unfortunately, Dr Black's account of the situation concerning the Government's reasons for changing the payment of Medicare benefits for epilepsy is very misleading. It is disappointing that somebody in Dr Black's position and with his responsibility has used his position so as to mislead and alarm those people with epilepsy. Contrary to what Dr Black claims, the 1 August changes to consultant physician fees were not designed to change the way epilepsy is managed. In fact, they were designed to match fees and benefits with changes in patient management practices which have already occurred. Changes to Medicare fees and benefits for the fourth and subsequent visits to consultant physicians were made to reflect far more accurately the consultant physician's role as it has evolved in modern medical practice. Fees for visits to consultant physicians were originally structured in recognition of the special role the physicians play in the diagnosing and stabilising of conditions, and as the providers of higher medical opinion. Over time, however, consultant physicians have moved increasingly into the provision of ongoing care and patient management. While the Government is not saying that it is inappropriate for it to provide ongoing care, we believe that in this case the fees should be adjusted accordingly. Thus, from the fourth visit to a consultant physician for a particular episode, the fee drops back to the rate currently paid for specialists who provide similar ongoing care. Discussions have been held since, between the Department and representatives of consultant physicians, to examine any possible anomalies in the system. The physicians have proposed the introduction of a new system involving major and minor consultations. Discussions are continuing about this. However, Dr Black's suggestion that if the August change does result in reduced costs this somehow will be unfair to epileptics and others with chronic illnesses is ludicrous. Senator TAMBLING —I refer the Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health to the answer which the Minister for Community Services and Health gave to a question in the House of Representatives in which Dr Blewett condemned the Northern Territory Government over the establishment of a private hospital within a public hospital campus in Darwin. This was an interim measure pending the completion of a new building for a private hospital. Given the Health Minister's warning that this decision has major policy implications, does this warning also apply to all State governments and, in particular, the New South Wales Government regarding its proposals to introduce similar private hospitals within the St George hospital, the Lismore hospital and, possibly, the Campbelltown hospital? Does the Government intend also to close the private division already operating in the Calvary public hospital located in Canberra, which would be well known to Senator Ryan? Senator RYAN —The answer to the last part of Senator Tambling's question is no. As to his other questions arguing some sort of relationship between the policy in regard to the Northern Territory and possible policies in relation to New South Wales hospitals, I will refer those to Dr Blewett. Senator TAMBLING —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the nature of the Minister's answer, very emphatically, to the latter part of my question relating to the Calvary public hospital in Canberra in which she indicated that there would be no intention to close the private division, will she please draw a comparison between that situation and the situation at Royal Darwin Hospital? Senator RYAN —I will seek further information from Dr Blewett. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen Steve Burrell's article in the Sydney Morning Herald of today headlined `Despite Joh's bluster, Queensland is a mess'? Is it true that-I quote the article-`of the 18 key economic indicators released up to October this year, Queensland has the worst result in six, the second worst in five, and was below the national average in 13'? What effect does the wallowing of the economy of the State represented by Senator Stone have on the national results? How does Queensland compare with Western Australia, another mining and agricultural State? Would a prices and incomes accord approach such as the one operated by this Government have a positive effect on Queensland's economic performance? Senator WALSH —I am not sure that it is actually fair to blame Senator Stone for the state of the Queensland economy. Senator Robert Ray —He has just moved up there. Senator WALSH —Yes, he has not been there long enough to have had much effect on it. I am sure that Senator Stone would not share all of the eccentricities of the Queensland Premier. For example, I understand that in his youth he was a student of nuclear physics and he would therefore not believe that a fusion reactor could be put into the boot of a motor car to generate electricity for the hydrolysis of water and then an internal combustion engine could be run on the hydrogen gas produced. I am sure that even though it is a very long time since Senator Stone was a student of nuclear physics he would not believe that as the Queensland Premier did. I doubt that he would believe that Milan Brych had a cure for cancer either, or that water will run uphill. I have seen Steve Burrell's article. It is obvious that he has been studying either the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) bulletins or the Senate Hansards because he uses the sort of economic statistics which have been published by the ABS over the last year or so and to which the attention of the Senate has been drawn from time to time by questions from Senator Maguire and various Queensland senators, and probably by Senator Cook before. I have been asked what the comparison is between Queensland and Western Australia. I cannot remember off the top of my head all the figures but I do recall that Western Australia had the highest rate of private investment in the most recent financial year for which statistics are available; Queensland had the lowest. I think the same is also true for employment growth, even though the economies of the two States are probably more similar than the economy of either State is to that of any other State. As well as the summary which Senator Cook mentioned in his question, the article shows-to the best of my recollection these figures are all correct, as indeed I would expect them to be-that the unemployment rate in October in Queensland was 9.9 per cent compared with a national average of 8.2 per cent; that the job vacancy rate in August was 0.5 per cent, which is the lowest for any State; that employment growth in the year to October was 1.1 per cent, only half of the national figure; that retail sales in the year to September were the lowest at 6.9 per cent compared with a national figure of 8.1 per cent; and so on. Indeed, as one goes through the statistics one finds that almost without exception Queensland has turned in either the worst performance or the second worst performance. As this article says: Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's successor will inherit an economy which has performed consistently worse than the national average over the past four years. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I draw the Minister's attention to recent newspaper reports that three northern New South Wales enterprises funded by the Aboriginal Development Commission have recently failed-the most recent being the Oasis Hotel at Walgett, which is expected to go into receivership despite grant moneys of some $900,000 being poured into it. Given that the ADC operates on a national budget of nearly $100m annually and given the criticism expressed by many in the community that little study is done into the business worth of many of the projects selected for funding, I ask whether the Department plans to review its selection criteria for future projects. How does the Government justify this apparently careless use of taxpayers' funds? Can the Minister attribute the reason for default by borrowers of taxpayers' money to lack of asset backing, market changes, management and staff training difficulties or failure to seek expert advice? Senator TATE —Senator Brownhill has asked several questions concerning the relationship of the funding by the Aboriginal Development Commission to the Department's responsibility for the expenditure of money on various projects in northern New South Wales. I am not absolutely clear as to whether the Commission is sufficiently independent or autonomous for its own officers to make that judgment rather than the Department make the assessment which lies behind the thrust of Senator Brownhill's question. I think I will need to clarify that relationship of the Department and the Aboriginal Development Commission before I can usefully answer the question in its various parts. I do know that when the-I think it was-Chief Executive Officer of the Aboriginal Development Commission appeared before the Estimates committee, he was subjected to a very thorough examination by Senator Tambling, amongst others. I think the Executive Officer gave an extremely good account of the steps that were being taken by the Development Commission to try to ensure that expenditure of money is in fact useful and achieves the objectives of the Commission, the Government and the general community. Insofar as the honourable senator asked questions relating to specific projects in northern New South Wales, I will have to refer those to the Minister for reply. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my gallery of a distinguished former senator, Stan Collard. Stan must be popular. I have had five reminders from honourable senators on both sides of the chamber that he is sitting there. On behalf of all senators, therefore, I wish him well on this visit to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator AULICH —I also welcome Stan Collard. We are delighted to see him back here on the other side. My question is to the Minister for Justice. Has the Minister seen Press reports that the Launceston office of the Australian Federal Police will close? Can he inform the Senate of the reasons for this decision? Does he intend to review that decision himself? Senator TATE —I have had my attention drawn to reports that the office of the Australian Federal Police in Launceston is to be closed. I must say that I first heard of this last night. I think it was Mr Warwick Smith, the Federal member for Bass in the other place, who wrote to me about this matter. I immediately put out a Press release which, amongst other things, made these comments: . . . decisions about deployment of the Federal Police in Tasmania would be made on strict operational grounds. . . . the Federal Police Commissioner, Major General Grey, had responsibility for the deployment of his force throughout Australia. The statement continues: Any decision he makes on the Launceston office would be taken on strict operational grounds, and I have no intention of politically influencing his decision. The fight against drug trafficking and major fraud against the Commonwealth is too important to be bedevilled by Ministers playing politics as to where the force is deployed . . . Having made that very general statement-- Senator Walters —Ha, ha! Senator TATE —Senator Walters laughs at my attitude that the proper deployment of forces is the operational responsibility of the Commissioner. If she thinks it is all right for politicians to interfere in the deployment of those forces, she should say so. I will be pleased to have a debate on it. I happen not to agree with her point of view. This morning I received a fuller briefing. It is quite clear from an assessment made by Assistant Commissioner Winchester, whose responsibilities include the Tasmania region, that any decision to close the Launceston station would be sufficiently well based, I believe, to satisfy those members-and even those members of the northern Tasmanian community-who may have misgivings and worries about this matter. The briefing document from Deputy Commissioner Johnson reads: Assistant Commissioner Winchester reported that-from an examination of the work load of functions being performed at Launceston it was evident to him, when compared against AFP priorities, that the resource commitment of the station could not be justified. Apart from very minor fraud related inquiries and some intelligence gathering exercises, the work load was found to be negligible. Whilst there is a Family Law Court commitment, when it is in session, this service could be provided as required from Hobart. The objective of closing the station is not a cost saving exercise but rather a more efficient deployment of personnel to higher priority work. Because I am always very conscious of the Federal police officers union, I might say that the proposal to close the Launceston station has been accepted by the Australian Federal Police Association. So there we have it: the decision has been made on operational grounds. It appears to be well based. Even if it were not as well based as it is, I would not seek to exercise political influence in relation to its deployment. Senator Walters —You are a wonderful Tasmanian Minister! Senator TATE —Senator Walters thinks that because I am Tasmanian I should take a parochial attitude and deploy Federal police in a way which prevents them from more effectively fighting organised crime and drug trafficking around Australia. That is not my attitude. I do not believe that the honourable senator's attitude is shared by senators on either side of the chamber. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Is it true that the Minister has caused to be issued a document entitled `Guidelines for Spouses' Meetings with the Minister'? Does the Minister concede that the Government has no right to place any such restrictions on service spouses as, like other Australians, they are entitled to approach any parliamentarian as they wish? Senator ROBERT RAY —Earlier this afternoon in another place this question was answered in full. I refer Senator Watson to the text of that answer. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. In view of the topicality of immigration and the extraordinarily exclusive attitudes of two National Party senators, can the Minister give an account of the measures taken by the Hawke Government in recognition of the needs of migrant women and the great contribution which they make to Australian society? Senator RYAN —Unlike some elements in this place, the Government greatly appreciates the contribution made by migrants, including immigrant women, and recognises the need for special services to enable their participation of Australian society to be as full as they would wish it to be. It is the Government's intention that immigrant women, and women from non-English speaking backgrounds, benefit from the activities undertaken by the Government, in respect of both immigrants as a whole and women. The Office of the Status of Women and the Office of Multicultural Affairs aim to respond to the needs and concerns of immigrant and non-English speaking women. As examples of the special steps taken to that end, I remind the Senate of recent allocations from the Office of the Status of Women, including financial assistance for a special conference to provide an overview of areas of special concern to women from non-English backgrounds, as part of the National Agenda for Women. In 1986 the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils was granted $15,000 to employ an ethnic women's project officer to establish a national women's ethnic network. In 1986-87, $25,000 was allocated to the Illawarra Area Health Service, which has an area migrant health team, to investigate women's social and mental health and $8,280 was allocated to the ecumenical migration centre to assist in the needs of Vietnamese single mothers. As well as these specific projects, the Government's access and equity strategy seeks to ensure that all immigrants have access to an equitable share of Government programs and services. Part of this strategy has been to direct all departments to take action to identify and serve the needs of immigrant and non-English speaking women. One specific area for focus is immigrant women in rural areas. The Office of Multicultural Affairs has funded a project which is aimed at identifying the needs of immigrant and non-English speaking women in the Mildura area. The settlement needs of immigrant women are specifically addressed by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs women's and advising section. This section is responsible for monitoring and advising on the activities of the Department with regard to women. These are, of course, only some examples of the special steps taken to ensure that migrant women have, as far as possible, equal opportunity both to benefit from the services available in Australia and to contribute to and participate in Australian society. Senator McGAURAN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and Small Business. I refer the Minister to the Attorney-General's appointment of a consultative group to assist him in the development of planned national companies legislation. Is the Minister aware of the widespread opposition in the small business sector to the Government's proposal to abolish the current co-operative companies and securities scheme and replace it with a centralised commission under the control of the Federal Attorney-General? Does the Minister agree with small business organisations which have criticised the proposal because it will deny them access to decision makers in the corporate affairs area and because the level of services in each State will decline? In light of those concerns, will the Minister request the Attorney-General to appoint representatives of small business to his advisory group, which currently numbers 34 but has no representative of small business, or will he stand by and allow big government, big business and big unions access to bulldoze small business again? Senator Boswell —Excellent question. Senator Crichton-Browne —Co-operativism at its best. Senator BUTTON —I would be interested if Senator Crichton-Browne would put his view about this issue in a debate at some time. If he is in favour of intense regulation under a Federal system, I am sure he will adopt the view which is inherent in Senator McGauran's question. Senator Crichton-Browne —I believe in Federal co-operativism. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps at some time Senator Crichton-Browne can articulate what that means. If I might say so, it would be a formidable challenge. I am not aware of the extent of so-called widespread opposition to the proposals contained in the Attorney-General's discussion paper. In light of that statement, I cannot assess the validity or otherwise of the concerns which Senator McGauran says are being expressed by small business organisations. My experience with some of the small business organisations is that there has been a crisis of misunderstanding or a failure to understand certain changes in Government policies, more than anything else. The point of Senator McGauran's question, aided as it was by the gusty interjection of Senator Boswell, was whether I would ask the Attorney-General to look at having some representatives of small business on his advisory group. I will do that. I would probably also advise the Attorney- General that, in appointing representatives of small businesses, he should not indulge in their habit of self-appointed representatives of small business. As the honourable senator well knows, there are a number of organisations of that kind. Senator Chapman —Name them. Senator BUTTON —What does the honourable senator think this is? I will draw the honourable senator's question to the attention of the Attorney-General and see what his reaction is. Senator COULTER —I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy a series of questions in relation to the pollution of Australian food, in this case pollution with cadmium and not with chlorinated hydrocarbons. Is the Minister aware that Australian soils are polluted with cadmium to very high levels and that this element is being augmented by the addition of superphosphate, the phosphate coming from ocean islands? Is the Minister aware that the national residue survey for 1986 showed that 10 per cent of the wheat examined exceeded the permitted levels of cadmium? Did Sweden reject a shipment of Australian wheat as long as 10 years ago on the grounds of excessive cadmium contamination? Does Sweden currently not import Australian wheat on those grounds? Did the national residue survey of 1986 also show that 21 per cent of sheep kidneys and 12 per cent of beef kidneys exceeded the maximum permissible level of 2.5 milligrams of cadmium per kilogram? Incidentally, nearly 75 per cent of sheep kidneys in Western Australia exceeded that level. What is the Minister doing to publicise the hazards of cadmium intake and to reduce the levels of cadmium in Australian food? Senator WALSH —I think Senator Coulter would be as surprised as anybody else if I actually answered all those questions and, therefore, basically I will take them on notice. But I wish to say a couple of things. I am certainly not aware that Sweden has ever rejected a cargo of Australian wheat for any reason, but what he said may be so. I am not aware of the residue report of 1986. It is a long time since I have personally looked in any detail at these things, but I am aware of cadmium and I think the association with superphosphate is correct. But, firstly, having never lived in Lygon Street and, secondly, having been a practising farmer for nearly a quarter of a century-- Senator Ryan —Lygon Street? Senator WALSH —The Australian Democrats agricultural wing comes from Lygon Street. They are known derisively by agricultural economists of my acquaintance as Lygon Street farmers. Senator Gareth Evans —Mung beans and health food shops are the closest they ever get to cultivation. Senator WALSH —Yes, mung beans and health food shops and fairies at the bottom of the garden. But having been a practising farmer-and I know that superphosphate is not the only source of phosphate-I can assure Senator Coulter that if one tries to grow wheat, particularly on the sandier, loamier and gravelly soils of the Western Australian wheat belt, without using any superphosphate, and if superphosphate has not been used before, one does not even get one's seed back. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I wish to supplement an answer to a question I gave to Senator Alston earlier today about the Australian position on Afghanistan and whether or not the matter would be raised in Moscow. According to my advice, it has never been suggested that the matter not be on the Moscow agenda. I refer in particular to what the Prime Minister said in the House of Representatives on 19 November, as recorded on page 2391 of Hansard: . . . I and the Foreign Minister have condemned what is happening in Afghanistan, condemned the occupation by Soviet authorities in Afghanistan. We have done so time after time, and when I am in Moscow in less than a fortnight I shall be doing so again. I think that amounts to a comprehensive rebuttal of the implications in Senator Alston's question. Senator REYNOLDS —Yesterday Senator McLean asked me a supplementary question relating to payment of patient contributions by veterans receiving nursing home care because of war-caused disabilities. I have some supplementary information for him. The Government's compassion towards veterans with war-caused disabilities has not lessened, nor has its commitment to the ex-service community as a whole wavered. In the 1987-88 Budget, allocations to the Veterans' Affairs portfolio have increased by 14.15 per cent in health programs and by 12.9 per cent overall despite the intense pressure on the Government to reduce spending. These increases in the health programs are necessary and are a demonstration of the Government's commitment. Nevertheless, in the current climate, increases in Government spending, however, necessary, can only be sustained if every possible saving is made in areas where existing levels of expenditure cannot be justified. The levels of service and compensatory pension paid to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners are compassionate, fair and equitable. The levels of nursing and medical care provided to these pensioners when they are admitted to nursing homes are also fair, compassionate and equitable. However, the Government considers that their exemption from the patient contribution is inequitable in terms of other residents, including other veterans and war widows, who are not similarly relieved of any part of the costs of daily living when they are admitted to nursing home care. Senator SHEIL(Queensland) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator SHEIL —I thank the Senate. Yesterday the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds), who represents the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young), gave an unasked for departmental response in amplification of her answer to my question of the day before. Apart from not answering the question, the Minister has misrepresented my question and imputed improper motives to it. The editorial in today's Australian completely misrepresents my short question, which I will now repeat. I asked: When half a million Australians have difficulty in speaking English, why is the Government adding to this number by bringing in at least 40,000 migrants yearly with little or no English? I stress that they are migrants, not refugees. Why is the knowledge of English not a criterion prior to migrant entry? Why does the Government select migrants who have little or no English, thereby causing Australian taxpayers to fund tuition in English to the tune of some $50m a year? Subsequent reporting in all the media has distorted the debate and shows that the latent racism in the media and the minds of those who attacked me is unjustified. It appears to me that freedom of speech has been badly jolted over the past few days and that freedom of the Press has been taken as irresponsible licence. It was a perfectly legitimate question with regard to Government expenditure, but the media particularly have distorted and twisted it in an outrageous way. For example, the question is not `racist', as claimed, and in no way suggests that proficiency in English should be a criterion, let alone the sole criterion, for migrant selection. The question merely suggests that after selection and prior to entry migrants should attempt to learn English. Again, there was no suggestion of language testing or reference to their `funny clothes or different habits', as appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The Australian slithered quickly from `ability to speak English' to having a `full command of English'. Moreover, in my view it is undemocratic to have half a million people unable to take part in our democracy because they cannot speak English. To claim that there is no fundamental racial problem in California or Hawaii is specious, as is the claim that the main problem there is black-white and nothing to do with immigration. The problem in the United States of America at the moment is illegal immigration, on top of everything else, but it has nothing to do with my question. The media say that I have contributed to stirring up the worst in people, creating problems where none exist; that I am an opponent of large scale immigration from a diverse range of nations; and that I used intemperate language producing a polarised emotional slanging match. I ask members of the media to read my question again, if they ever read it at all. The complete misrepresentation of what I actually said is astonishing, and the journalists concerned have shown a lack of professionalism. Added to the abuse of me, Senator Stone has been vilified by the media on the basis of his interjection when the Minister failed to answer my question. The hypocrisy of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and another Minister in the other place is shown by what the proper answer to the question should have been-that the total English as a second language (ESL) allocation is down by 4.5 per cent this year. In real terms, the total ESL cutback is 11.5 per cent. This year's cutback follows the massive 44 per cent reduction in 1986. So much for what this Government thinks of teaching English to migrants. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 25 November, from Senator Wood: Dear Mr President, Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that today I propose to move- `That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The necessity for the Government to provide, by way of an inquiry by a Senate committee or otherwise, an explanation of the functions of the proposed satellite monitoring and communications facility at Geraldton, and to give an account of the cost of the facility and reasons for any increase in the estimated cost.' Yours sincerely, (Robert Wood) Senator for the State of New South Wales Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(3.10) —I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The necessity for the Government to provide, by way of an inquiry by a Senate committee or otherwise, an explanation of the functions of the proposed satellite monitoring and communications facility at Geraldton, and to give an account of the cost of the facility and reasons for any increase in the estimated cost. Senator WOOD(New South Wales)(3.10) —I regret that this matter has to be dealt with by way of an urgency motion. Earlier today there was an attempt to have the whole matter referred to a Senate standing committee for inquiry. That would have been our preferred method of dealing with this question because we realise that the Government will now refuse to give us any information in any way and hence will paint itself into a corner and that this will probably be the last occasion on which we will hear of this matter from the Government. It is important that this matter be addressed quite thoroughly because it is a question, as is the case with all such spy bases, of Australian sovereignty. The questions that must be asked are: What is going on at Geraldton? What will the base there do? Who will it spy on and why? What will be done with the information? Who will get the information, and how much will it cost? Is Geraldton an appropriate site anyway? What about the local people of Geraldton who, it appears, will have their land forcibly taken away from them? Those questions should be addressed. We may have to pursue them further in discussions on the appropriations to get what information we can. The base at Geraldton will spy on satellites over one-third of the globe. The satellites belong to a wide range of friends, allies-and those who are not our allies-and neighbours. The intelligence and communications intercepted through these satellites will not just be military intelligence; it will be military, political and economic. So the Geraldton base will be listening in on the conversations of our allies and friends in all areas of their operations. Senator MacGibbon —They would not be listening to ours, would they? Senator WOOD —I can answer that question by referring to a nice little glossy leaflet which was put out by the Department of Defence and placed as an insert in the local newspaper. An item under the heading `Important fact' states: DSD- that is, the Defence Signals Directorate- has no role in domestic intelligence-that is to say, its only role is with foreign intelligence. That was an assurance that we would not be spying on our own people. Senator Robert Ray —You misunderstood what he meant by `they'. Senator MacGibbon —Are you going to tell me that neighbours around Australia are not listening to what we are doing here? Senator WOOD —No. The base that we already have at Pine Gap, as we know, was spying on Greece. We know that Pine Gap has been used for a whole range of spying missions other than its alleged uses. There is no doubt in my mind that the base at Geraldton will be used for those purposes too. The question in my mind is: whose defence needs is that base catering for-our own or those of foreign powers? There is a United Kingdom-United States of America agreement that a whole host of Anglo-Saxon countries which have agreed to share intelligence will be the main beneficiaries of the intelligence gained from these satellites. Senator Puplick —What's wrong with Anglo- Saxons? Senator WOOD —There is nothing wrong with Anglo-Saxons; in recent history it is just that colonialism and imperialism tend to have been practised most successfully by Anglo-Saxons. That fact that we are here is evidence of that. Whose work will the spy base be doing? Why does Australia need to monitor all the satellites operating in a whole third of the globe? Why do we need to get that information and what could we do with it? Senator MacGibbon and other Opposition senators have said that we do not even have the capability to take over a small country within our region-if we wanted to do so-that our forward defence capability is pretty loose and slack, that our whole defence services have wound down and that we cannot project force within the region. Senator MacGibbon —That's right. Senator WOOD —Senator MacGibbon says, `That's right'. Why do we need so much military intelligence if we cannot do anything about it anyway? Obviously, we are doing the work for the bullies in the region. We will collect the information from our friends and allies and decode it through technology provided for us, in the main by the United States. That raises the other questions: whose technology is it that will be in the base, what will we have to surrender in exchange for this technology, other than money, and what services will we have to provide? It seems to me that Australia should be looking towards a defence capability which is defensive and which allows Australians to defend Australia in event of attack, and not towards further involvement in the nuclear war fighting capabilities of the United States. It seems to me that what is happening at Geraldton is the building of a base that will put Australia further into that game-that Australia will collect in its own right the sort of strategic intelligence needed to be part of a nuclear war fighting game and that that information will be provided to the other nuclear super-powers which will inextricably link us ever deeper into the whole game. It is time that Australia adopted independent foreign and defence policies so that our defence and foreign policies would meet Australia's needs. The question of our friends and neighbours arises here. Given that we will be spying on and collecting information affecting Indonesia, Japan, China, Italy and a whole range of countries, what does that say to them about our motives? If we spy ever more closely on Indonesia, will that not increase the tension between Australia and Indonesia? Surely the whole notion of defence is about security and the whole notion of security is to reduce tension. Surely the opening of the Geraldton base will increase tensions in the region, not just with us as an appendage to the United States, being involved with it in its tension with others in the region, but in our own right as we create further tension. It seems to me that Australia has a responsibility to operate in a new way in the region-a way which encourages co-operation and communication and secures our borders and citizens without threatening our neighbours and without increasing tension in the region. Why has there been a sudden massive increase in the projected costs of the Geraldton base? The figures that are now being given are far in excess of the original estimates, and suddenly they are secret. The Government stated that it would fully explain the costs of the Geraldton and other bases. But now they are secret. I did not agree with, but I could understand, the United States not wanting Australians to know what was going on at Pine Gap and other bases it has here, but if the base at Geraldton is to be an Australian spy base, doing Australian spying for Australia, Australians ought to know who is being spied on and why, how much it will cost and what the money will be spent on. There is no question of divulging the secrets of a foreign power, be it the United States or whoever; they can have their secrets. But surely we in Australia should know what our spy bases are doing and how much it is costing. Senator MacGibbon —We do know that. Senator WOOD —We do not know it. The other day the Minister said that it was Government policy that the figures would not be given. We will pursue the matter in the Estimates committee hearings and in debate on the Appropriation Bills to get some more accurate expenditure figures. I want to know why this Government seems to be embarking on a more closed government policy on these matters than its predecessor. We harassed the previous Government to try to get information about bases and other things in this country. But this Government, which at the time supported those efforts, is now using the same tactics of neither confirming nor denying but hiding its figures. We are demanding that the figures relating to, and the purposes of, the base be a matter of straight public record. We want straight answers to straight questions. The debate today, which I am aware is taking up valuable time, is necessary because the Government will not come clean and answer these questions. That is why this is a matter of urgency. Before we go any further down the track towards another secret base like Pine Gap which will provoke even more contention, agitation, demonstration and all the rest of it in the community, let us have an open and clean debate on just what is going on at Geraldton. Even the local residents cannot get clear answers on to what is happening at Geraldton. The Department of Administrative Services has offered them a price significantly below the current valuation of their property. It has said that it is now looking at the compulsory acquisition process, `although negotiations will continue'. Even the local residents-I am pleased to see that Wilson Tuckey has taken up their cause-are being bullied. They have not been offered adequate compensation and are not being told the truth. The buffer zone around the proposed base will be inaccessible to farmers. There is talk about a lease-back arrangement for farmers in the area. The buffer zone will be under licence on a monthly payment basis, with 48 hours notice given to farmers to remove all stock. Senator McGauran is not here to ask, `What about the farmers?' so I will ask that question for him. Can a farmer remove all his stock within 48 hours, without an alternative place to put it? What about the locals of Geraldton? Will they get justice from this Government, or will this Government bully them? What about the safety of the Geraldton site? A local resident is reported in a newspaper article as follows: `I wish to point out the stupidity of choosing this site as it is on a severe earthquake fault,' . . . `You would need to be blind not to see the evidence of past quakes there'. Mrs Martin said she had been living on the farm when the Cadoux earthquake occurred. That quake happened on June 2 1979 and measured 6.2 on the richter scale. It is not just a question of Australian sovereignty and the threatening of our neighbours but also a question of bullying the locals and of inadequate preparation of the proposal for this site. I conclude by reiterating the questions that we want answered. What is the base at Geraldton going to do? It is capable of doing a great deal of spying-economic, political and military. What sort of information will it concentrate on? To whom will this information go, and for what purpose? For whose strategic interest will all this information be collected, and at what cost? Are Australians to pay the cost of building and maintaining the base, together with the cost of collecting the information and then passing it on to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Pentagon and anyone else in the Anglo-Saxon club? Is it a question of Australia paying for and doing someone else's dirty work? Why the secrecy, and why the bullying of the locals? Senator ROBERT RAY —(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) (3.28)-The Australian defence satellite communications station (ADSCS) to be built at Geraldton is one of the most important elements in this Government's program to make Australia self-reliant in its own defence. That program has received the almost universal acclaim of the Australian community. Disagreements, when they have come from, say, the Left, including the sort of opinion espoused by Senator Wood and his supporters, have been to the effect that our self-reliant posture does not go far enough. The honourable senator stressed that again today. There are people who argue that we ought to declare ourselves completely non-aligned and deprive ourselves of any assistance from other countries. What these people need to understand is how important good intelligence is to the maintenance of a self-reliant defence posture and of security in our region. They also need to understand that the ADSCS at Geraldton will be the most significant intelligence project ever undertaken in this country and that the sort of inquiry they propose would go a long way toward rendering taxpayers' investment at Geraldton worthless, Australia less secure and the region more unstable. The simple and naive view of Senator Wood and his companions is that intelligence is bad and dangerous. They are wrong. It is ignorance which is dangerous because ignorance leads to mistaken fears. Let me give a concrete example from recent history. Much of the blame for the nuclear arms race of the last 25 years can be laid at the door of inadequate United States intelligence about Soviet weapons developments in the early 1960s. The United States came to believe that the Soviet Union was engaged in massive weapons developments which it feared would overwhelm its own forces. In fact, it was quite wrong. It systematically overestimated Soviet strengths because its information about actual Soviet weapons developments was sketchy. Without hard information, US officials had to do a lot of guessing, and they inevitably assumed the worst. The result was a growing fear of a missile gap which would leave the United States vulnerable to a Soviet first strike. The result of that wrong assessment of a Soviet build-up was a very real US buildup. The US started a massive weapons program to meet the Soviet threat that did not exist. In response to that US build-up, the Soviets began a massive buildup of their own-starting an arms race which is only now showing signs of coming under some control. This history lesson needs to be considered very carefully by Senator Wood and his supporters. I do not know whether Senator Wood reads Marx, but he has probably heard that those who do not study history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let me give an example of how this tragic piece of history could be repeated in our own case, were we to follow Senator Wood's proposal to nobble our own intelligence capabilities. Senator Wood may be aware, if he has taken enough interest in Australia's defence to read the Government White Paper on the subject, that our defence posture is based on the concept of warning. It is important that he understands that. Put simply, Australia's defence forces are designed to be able to meet any threat that could emerge at relatively short notice. We do not maintain the massive forces that would be needed to defend Australia against an all-out invasion, because we know that there are no forces around that are large enough to pose that threat at the moment. It is absolutely fundamental to that strategy that we must be confident in our ability to detect any changes to the forces in our region, and beyond, that could threaten us, and we need to be able to detect them early enough to respond effectively. That is the reason why we place the highest priority on the most effective intelligence possible. If we were not confident that we could detect strategic changes that might threaten us before those threats actually emerge, Australia would have to maintain massively larger armed forces than it does. That would be a tragedy in two ways. Firstly, it would be an enormous cost to the nation. At the minimum, we would need to double our defence spending to $15 billion per year. That would be a disaster for our economy, and could not help but undermine the social goals of this Government. But that would be the lesser of the two evils which would flow from the defence buildup which Senator Wood appears to regard as preferable to effective intelligence. I ask Senator Wood to consider how the countries of the region would respond to a sudden doubling of defence spending by Australia. The answer is painfully obvious: they would quite naturally begin to worry about what we were up to. Their response would very likely be to start building up their own defences. We, in turn, in ignorance and fear, would redouble our own efforts, and so on. I think the final outcome can be imagined-and I do not imagine it is the outcome that Senator Wood really wants. I hope this helps Senator Wood to understand why we regard good intelligence as essential to our self-reliant defence posture, and fundamental to regional stability. I draw the Senate's attention to a similar intellectual difficulty which Senator Wood and his fellows have in relation to the joint facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. They continue to oppose the operations of those facilities in the face of all the evidence-not all of which comes from the Government, I might say-that those facilities make an absolutely fundamental contribution to the maintenance of deterrence, and to the hopes of arms control. Senator Wood does not like intelligence, but he cannot avoid the vital contribution that good intelligence makes to keeping the peace. But let us get back to the base at Geraldton, which is not a joint facility. It will be a wholly Australian owned, operated and managed facility. Senator Wood believes that we are not telling him as much as he would like to know about the station and its functions-too true. He might like to note, though, that this Government has done much more than any of its predecessors to open up the operations of the Australian intelligence community, including the joint facilities, to public knowledge. In doing so, we have been guided by two principles. The first is that we should release as much information as possible. The second is that we should not release information which would reduce the effectiveness of these operations. Following these principles, we have released as much as we can. In relation to the joint facilities, for example, we have massively increased the amount of information on the public record, in the Prime Minister's statement on 6 June 1984, in the White Paper this year and elsewhere. In relation to Geraldton, we have from the first given the maximum information about the facility. For example, we have identified the ADSCS as a facility of the Defence Signals Directorate (DSD). This is the first time we have identified any DSD facility. We have given a description of the functions of the facility which is accurate, and as complete as can reasonably be given without risking the effectiveness with which it can perform those functions. I might point out that a lot of the points raised in Senator Wood's speech regarding the functions of the Geraldton facility are nothing more than arrant speculation. Although it seems obvious, the link between secrecy and effectiveness in the intelligence business seems to have escaped Senator Wood's attention, so I suppose it is worth going over it one more time. The fact is that any substantial information about an intelligence operation could be used to help frustrate it. How such information could be used in that way may be a mystery to Senator wood and others, but I doubt that he would claim any great expertise in this area. To the experts, small snippets of information carefully assembled can yield a lot of data, and that data can be used to frustrate our intelligence efforts. We are spending large amounts of taxpayers' money on intelligence activities and we do not consider it useful to risk wasting it. We have told as much as we can about Geraldton because we believe it is important that Australians understand that our defence posture is underpinned by adequate and effective intelligence capabilities. To say more would simply undermine the effectiveness of the facility and the security of this country. Senator Wood in his motion also raises the issue of the cost of the facility, which he believes has increased. I am unaware of the origin of that belief, unless it is Senator Vallentine's discussions with the farmers or officers of the Department who did not know the actual cost. Perhaps he is just reflecting the edifice of speculation on the same subject presented by Senator Vallentine yesterday. At any rate, in our view they are both wrong. No cost for the facility has been published but I can assure them that the estimated cost of the project has not increased-that is the one assurance that I am willing to give. I therefore propose that Senator Wood's motion be defeated, on the grounds that the inquiry called for is unnecessary and dangerous. It is unnecessary because the Government has already given all the information it responsibly can about the project. It is dangerous because to give any more information would undermine the effectiveness of the station, the security of Australia, and the stability of the region. Going to the question of the urgency of this matter, the main urgency to discuss it today is because we are on radio, so I will not spend any more time on that. When will, and when can senators expect to know exactly what happens at Geraldton? It is when their party wins 75 seats in the House of Representatives, and they will be informed as the incoming government. Senator Vallentine —That is a cynical statement. Senator ROBERT RAY —It is not a cynical statement. That is the reality. That is our position. It is the one we had before the election and the one that we have afterwards. It is a consistent position. Just because it does not agree with Senator Vallentine's position, she calls it cynical. Senator Vallentine —You have not supplied enough information. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Vallentine says that I have not supplied enough information. Senator Wood comes in and says that we are spying on Greece. He has no authority for that and has put forward no evidence. I suggest that the evidence came from a third-rate journalist in a second-rate rag called the National Times, which will repeat any piece of flip information about security services. That is the bible of Senator Sanders because it appeals to the naivety in certain people. I would not be surprised if the first thing that Senator Sanders does every day when he gets up is read his stars. He is just the sort of naive type to believe in astrology. I believe that he is irredeemably lost to rational debate or anything else. I do not believe that about Senator Wood and I will hold judgment on Senator Vallentine. Senator Sanders is a lost cause. Maybe, deep in Senator Sanders's childhood, he read too much Enid Blyton. Maybe he should have been brought up on the Miller's Guide, like myself. He seems also to have a metaphysical block. Senator Sanders is a blockhead, but these people have a metaphysical block when it comes to the Soviet Union. It is not there, it does not exist, in their minds. I have hardly ever heard them refer to an arms build-up in the Soviet Union, the invasion of Afghanistan or anything else-it does not exist. It is not that they are not sincere on the subject. If their attention is drawn to those issues they will respond in a humanitarian and rational way, but they never initiate those issues in this chamber. We never hear from them about these issues. I am appalled by the fact. I never grew up to be either particularly pro- or anti-American; one does not, in the Australian Labor Party. Opposition senators interjecting- Senator ROBERT RAY —That is true. The traditions of the Australian Labor Party are neither pro- nor anti-American. We have developed our defence and foreign affairs policy in relation to where we see the basic interests of Australia resting. At the moment, in terms of world social systems, as a preferable choice we will take the Americans every time. But this sort of absence always represents criticism of Australia, of Australia's defence posture and intelligence gathering. We never hear criticism of the KGB. It is as though it does not exist. I am reminded of what happened in the middle of the Profumo affair when Prime Minister Macmillan marched into the House of Commons and said, `Operating in this country we have the finest secret service in the world', to which a Labour backbencher said, `Yes, the KGB'. We must know early where the trouble spots in our region are. It can be done only by gathering intelligence. It will not occur through a leak in the National Times that there is a build-up in a neighbouring country. The more we expose the methods of gathering that intelligence, the more useless it is. In conclusion, we have been charged with three charges. We have been charged with not giving a full account, a detailed account, of what this facility at Geraldton will do. That is correct. Secondly, we will not give a total cost or a breakdown of costs on that facility. That is correct. That is Government policy; it will remain Government policy while we are on this side of the House and, I suspect, even when we are on that other side of the House, the incoming Government will take the same attitude. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(3.43) —We have just had an example of a man having absolutely nothing to say. I find that when people have nothing to say they indulge in personal abuse. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) had no facts. He launched into a massive cover-up based, at first, on anecdotes-and rather spurious historical anecdotes they were. He then launched into personal abuse of anyone who questions-just questions-the base and what it might do. For this questioning we were branded communists and, by implication, traitors. It was said that we never really talked about the Soviet Union-that we talked only about what the United States might do. I point out that the Soviet Union does not maintain a base such as Pine Gap in Australia. The Americans do. The Soviet Union does not. If the Soviet Union did, we would be just as concerned about the Soviet Union. The Minister accused us of being ignorant. Of course we are ignorant; we have had no information from this Government about the functions of this base or what it is to cost. Even in loose and rough terms we have nothing. The Minister's speech sounded very much like speeches made by apologists for the Fraser Government when it was in office. What happened to this Labor Party Government on the way to the election, I wonder? It has become a Laborial government, the Hawke conservative government. It sounds very much like the Fraser Government. It is not our supposedly open Labor Party. The Minister then brought up the hoary old chestnut of verification. I guess, by implication, the Geraldton base is to be used in some way for verification. Certainly, the Minister mentioned that Pine Gap is used for verification. Pine Gap certainly was not set up for verification, because it was set up long before the treaties which it now has a minor role in verifying were even known. Why are we having an independent satellite communication station? Certainly, I am all in favour of independence, but why do we have to pay $300m for this information gathering station? If it must be independent and if we are paying this money, this must be the Government admitting that Pine Gap is not a joint facility. This must be an admission by the Government that the Pine Gap information is solely US information and that Pine Gap is solely a US base. If this information were being shared with us, we simply would not need to have our own facility. If Pine Gap were a joint facility and we had full access to all information at Pine Gap, there would be absolutely no need for an independent facility at Geraldton. Perhaps we are not getting our full value from Pine Gap. I say-not only `perhaps' but, in fact, absolutely-that we are not getting the full information from Pine Gap. We are being denied information. Members of the Australian defence community know that this is the case. They know that this is not a joint facility and that is one of the reasons why they may be building this base. There may be another reason and I will come to that in a while. What does the Geraldton base do? I suppose it is logical to assume that it will operate, although we have no firm information on this, in a manner similar to Pine Gap. We have had a lot of talk about Pine Gap in this chamber. However, I think it is useful to go back over what Pine Gap is so that we can find out, since the Government will not tell us, what Geraldton might do. Okay, what does Pine Gap do? Pine Gap facility, which became operational in 1969, of course, is located 19 kilometres south-west of Alice Springs. The business end of the facility consists of seven large radomes and an enormous computer complex, currently being expanded. This computer complex is very necessary to decode all the signals that come in. Although Pine Gap is formally administered by the US National Reconnaissance Office, it is operationally controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Pine Gap was originally established as part of the Rhyolite project, which was easily the most sophisticated and comprehensive global surveillance system ever conceived. Basically, Rhyolite comprises three master satellites at geostationary altitude above the earth-which is about 36,000 kilometres-and positioned about 120 degrees apart. In this configuration the satellites provide for world-wide surveillance and monitoring of all-I repeat, all-telephonic and radio microwave communications, together with radar emissions, telemetry signals and a vast range of other radio emanations in every country on earth. In other words, the three master satellites act like giant vacuum cleaners, sucking up a wide spectrum of communications and radio signals and returning the raw data to ground stations at Pine Gap, Redondo Beach, California, and CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia. One of the worries that we have about Pine Gap is the definition of what is called-- Senator MacGibbon —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask you to apply standing order 419, which says: No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion. The matter under discussion is: The necessity of the Government to provide, by way of an inquiry by a Senate committee or otherwise, an explanation of the functions of the proposed satellite monitoring and communications facility at Geraldton, and to give an account of the cost of the facility and reasons for any increase in the estimated cost. I submit that the detailed assured functions of Pine Gap are quite irrelevant to the way this debate has run. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As I understand it, Senator Sanders is developing his argument by arguing that the new base is unnecessary, or could be unnecessary, because of the existence of Pine Gap. I think that is an argument relevant to the question being asked. I call Senator Sanders. Senator MacGibbon —Mr Deputy President-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It must be a different point of order, Senator MacGibbon. Senator MacGibbon —Yes, Mr Deputy President. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that your decision is based on a false assumption because the assumption is that Pine Gap is the same facility as the proposed defence signals intercept facility at Geraldton. There is no signals intercept facility at Pine Gap, nor will there be in the future. There is no parallel between Pine Gap and the proposed facility at Geraldton. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! I have ruled on the point of order. Senator MacGibbon's subsequent submission disputes my ruling. I am not in a position to decide what the functions of Pine Gap are. Senator Sanders is entitled to make such speculations if he likes, if it helps his argument. Senator SANDERS —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I think it is quite relevant to discuss Pine Gap in this issue because its functions are typical of those of a satellite communications station and I think it is necessary, in fact, to find out what these stations do. The problem with Pine Gap, and it is one reason we are concerned about it, is that its capacity for determining signals from all around the Soviet Union, in particular, creates an opportunity for a first strike capability for the United States. If the Soviet facilities, such as microwave links and other communications systems, go off the air, it is a possible time to launch a first strike and, as such, it is destabilising. Another very interesting function of Pine Gap, and something that Geraldton may or may not be involved in-we do not know because the Government will not tell us, but it very well could be-is a new development in the Aquacade satellite program. There are three Aquacade satellites, and they have only recently been placed in orbit. Three types of satellites-the Rhyolite, the Argus and the Aquacade-have allowed the United States to monitor, collect and analyse all civil and military communications emanating from anywhere on earth. But the systems do a lot more than that. The three master satellites are used for covert communications between US military and intelligence personnel around the world. This is the so-called Pyramider project and its existence was first revealed during the trial of Christopher Boyce, the convicted US spy, in April 1977. At Boyce's trial, Leslie Dirks, the Deputy Director of Science and Technology at the CIA, stated that the Pyramider project involved creating a system which would provide covert communications links between US intelligence agents in both open and denied areas of the world; communications with a global network of emplaced sensors which include a variety of devices collecting data remotely; and back-up communications to overseas installations in the event of regular channels of communication being disrupted. The prime objective of the Pyramider project was, according to Dirks, to ensure `maximum undetectability', and the essence of the system was to conceal the presence of secret operations. This is the sort of function, I suppose, that Geraldton could be involved in. I ask the Minister and his Government whether it is intended either, firstly, to set up such a program at Geraldton with our own spies or, secondly, to work with the United States program. This brings up some major questions. How do we get this intelligence in the first place? Whose satellites are we going to use? Are we going to launch our own, or are we going to tap into other satellites? If we tap into other satellites, are we going to get information from, for instance, the Americans on how to do it when they are transmitting or how to key their satellites? Do we have any information on this? The Minister is looking bored because he obviously has no information. Are we going to launch satellites? Does part of this include the launching of our own satellites? We do not know. One thing that worries me is that this may not, in fact, be an independent facility at all. This may be the first stage of the withdrawal of Pine Gap. Pine Gap is one of the two most vulnerable links, in a public relations sense, in the whole US system in Australia-the other being North West Cape. North West Cape is vulnerable because of the fact that its purest function, its only function, is communication with warships. It has no verification function whatsoever. Pine Gap is vulnerable because it is a spy base. It is run by the CIA. It would make infinitely good sense for the United States to eliminate this controversy by eliminating Pine Gap and letting the Australian Government take over all the functions of Pine Gap and take over all the functions at the new base at Geraldton, thus getting the Americans off the propaganda hook. They will not have the bad Press any more. Let the Australians do it. Let it be a totally Australian facility and not a joint facility. That makes infinitely good sense to the Americans and if it makes good sense to the Americans, it probably makes good sense to the Hawke conservative Government because we know that the Hawke Government is very supportive of the Americans. No matter what they do to our farmers in the wheat trade or in regard to any other type of export, the Hawke Government will support the Americans. I submit that the reason that the Minister is not telling us about Geraldton is that it is not going to be an Australian base at all; it will be run for the Americans by the Australians. I think that is a terrible thing. The Minister is looking even more bored; he is looking at the ceiling and he is rolling his eyes. He obviously would like to make us believe that there is absolutely no substance to this, but I do not think he is going to carry out that role successfully. I would just like to close with some observations about what happened when Pine Gap first came on the scene. The Australian Government first agreed to the establishment of Pine Gap in 1966. At the time it seems our leaders had no idea of the precise purpose of the installation. Does that sound familiar? In fact, three of Australia's recent Prime Ministers have gone on record as saying they were ignorant of the major aspects of Pine Gap. In December 1978 John Gorton admitted: I don't even know what Pine Gap is all about. I didn't then . . . I could have asked but it didn't arise. I didn't ask about it. In May 1977, talking about Pine Gap and Nurrungar, Sir William McMahon said: I have increasing doubts that the Australian Government knows the entire truth. Gough Whitlam-I do not know whether or not Senator Robert Ray likes Gough Whitlam; I thought he was a wonderfully good Prime Minister and he is actually the reason I came to Australia-has revealed on a number of occasions that he was never told certain critical aspects relating to Pine Gap. For example, no one saw fit to tell him that the first officer in charge of the base was a CIA employee or that Pine Gap was a CIA facility. Over and over again these leaders said they did not know what was going on. Our government does not know what is going on at Geraldton. Are we entering yet another agreement with our eyes shut? Senator HILL(South Australia)(3.57) —We have learned one thing today; that is, that a further legacy of the Whitlam regime is Senator Sanders. I suggest it is a matter of great regret, and I doubt whether even former Prime Minister Whitlam would wish to claim that doubtful privilege. Senator Sanders's contribution was indeed disappointing and I think in some ways even offensive to Senator Wood, who raised this matter. He very seriously and reasonably sought further information from this Government on the various facilities, including their cost. I say it is reasonable to seek that information; it is not always in the best interests of the nation that the Government should give it. That is one frustration of matters that do fall within high security classification. It is a frustration that from time to time some of us on this side of the House experience when we would wish further information. But unfortunately it is a fact of life that when matters have a high security classification, as has this particular installation, the wide giving of information on detailed functions could clearly, in some circumstances, not be in the best interests of the nation. That is something that we on this side of the House recognise. I am somewhat surprised that Senator Wood has taken this position in his speech which, on the face of it, would appear to indicate opposition to this facility. I would have thought that it was the type of non-violent contribution to Australia's defence that the senator for nuclear disarmament would be applauding. I would have thought that a senator for nuclear disarmament would prefer us to be spending more on an intelligence capacity, a capacity to predict what might happen in the future and, therefore, to take steps-they may be diplomatic steps or other steps-other than purely defence steps to move in this country's best interests. I am somewhat surprised about Senator Wood's position on this matter, when the facility would give us greater independence in this capacity. Contrary to what Senator Wood said, it would in some ways give us greater independence from what he refers to as the nuclear war fighting game because, as he is well aware, this intelligence facility is to be solely operated by Australian personnel and the information gained from it will be solely in Australian government hands. I would have thought that, on the face of it, factors in the installation of this facility would appeal to a senator from the Nuclear Disarmament Party. I am somewhat surprised, therefore, that he has taken the position he has. The Opposition does not see this matter as urgent. We do not at this time think it is appropriate for the matter to be referred to a Senate committee. Therefore we will vote against the motion. I say that, applying the same rule to us as I do to the nuclear disarmament people, it is quite legitimate in the future to seek further information on the functions of this facility and the costs involved. We will do that in the future through the proper avenues. We anticipate that in due course the leadership of the Opposition, the alternative government, will be briefed in the same way as it is briefed on the joint intelligence facilities. If there are matters that, after we have pursued all the proper courses, we find are unsatisfactory in our opinion we have recourse to the options of this parliamentary process. We approach these matters from a different point of view. We do not presume that a facility gaining defence intelligence information for this nation has something sinister about it or that something is being hidden from us for purely political purposes. We are prepared, at the moment, to take such a facility on face value. On the other hand, we are entitled to factual information. We will be determining a detailed policy on this matter in the same way as we determine detailed policy on all defence aspects, and in due course we will make that policy public. I must say that it is our impression that more information is available than Senator Wood seems to think. Certainly, I was aware, as the Government has stated in this debate, that the information provided about the purpose of this facility and the role of the Defence Signals Directorate in relation to it is greater than is normally given in such circumstances. I think that is a trend in the right direction, provided the Government does not go beyond its defence and intelligence responsibilities. On the information that is available, our immediate reaction is that we think the facility will be a worthwhile contribution to Australia's defence capacities. Basically we agree with what appears in the Defence White Paper, upon which the announcement of this facility was based. I refer to chapter 4, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, in which it is said: A high level of capability in strategic intelligence is fundamental. That is something we agree with. It says: This allows us to review developments in the defence capabilities and political positions of other countries and to monitor them for changes that could affect our security. That seems obvious to us and is something that is in our best interests. It says: Our intelligence priorities focus on those potential changes that affect us directly. We agree with that; it is the major distinction between this facility and Pine Gap-and a distinction that perhaps Senator MacGibbon, who has some expertise in this field, touched upon when he intervened some time ago. We in this country do not have the capacity at the moment to monitor satellite communications within our region. We have a responsibility in that area not only to ourselves but also to our friends and allies in the wider Western alliance. This facility would give us the capacity to do so whereas, as we know, Pine Gap and the other major joint facilities have a much wider international strategic role. This report goes on to say-and we agree: We must also, however, be able to assess developments beyond our region of primary strategic interest. This facility, an independent facility in Australia's hands, would enable us to do that. The report goes on to say: The Government plans to enhance our independent intelligence capabilities by establishing a large satellite communications station in Western Australia. That facility has now been announced and is the subject of this debate. It says: This will contribute to Australia's security in our area of strategic interest. The station will be totally Australian owned and will be manned and operated by the Defence Signals Directorate. As I have indicated, on the face of that document we agree with what is stated therein. Similarly, we agree with that part of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities which deals with the same matter. Under the chapter headed `Intelligence and Surveillance', on page 60, Mr Dibb says: Our national intelligence assets and analytical effort should be primarily oriented to this region and we should seek a high level of intelligence self-reliance within this area. That is something with which we agree. I stress that it is only part of our capacity to gain this intelligence information. It has to be added to the various early warning capacities we have, with the over the horizon radar being developed, and so on. Nevertheless, it seems to us that on the face of the public information we have at the moment, which we think is reasonable information, the case is well made out. I have tried very briefly to draw a distinction between a capacity such as this and that of joint facilities such as Pine Gap, which are really part of a different league in this field-the big league. Nevertheless, we on this side of the chamber support our contribution to facilitating the gathering of information on the world scene and, in part, the gathering of information in the nuclear arms race which we believe has a deterrent capacity. We strongly support the Western alliance. We do not hedge from that position. We strongly support our contribution, which we think is rather moderate, in providing facilities in a joint approach through those major bases in Australia. This facility has a much more limited capacity. It will involve a contribution we can make to our own defence at times when we might be threatened by a contingency that is of lesser concern to the super-powers. It might just be that the time will come when the concentration of the United States is on matters that concern super-powers and not on regional matters of concern to us. Therefore, to have our own capacity to gather information that we believe is of importance to the security of this country, to be able to process that information through our experts and to analyse and use it in an independent way that we believe is in the best interests of this country, we think is a valuable asset. I do not want to go through the details of the base, which we have heard from others. Geraldton, in many ways it seems, is particularly well placed. If it is possible from Geraldton to monitor signals travelling to and fro on approximately one-third of the world's surface, that in itself seems to be some evidence that it is well placed. It is public knowledge that our Defence Signals Directorate is capable and well able to operate a base such as this, both in the tasks of interception and the decrypting of information that we get from it. Other speakers have touched upon what is done with the information and who we might provide with it. Even when one negotiates with friends it is better to be able to give something if one wants to be assured of what one gets in return. I have no doubt that information that we gain from this facility from time to time we will be able to provide to our friends and allies in a positive effort in our mutual best interests to achieve greater security of this region and the world. On the face of the information that we have at the moment, which we think is reasonable in the circumstances, there is a good argument for a facility such as this. The way in which the Government has handled this matter at the grass-roots level in relation to property acquisition has been ham-fisted. That is a matter of great regret. It should have thought it was important to get the local people on side with a project such as this in the national interest. Rather there has been the attempted acquisition of part of a farm which in effect would put people out of business, take away their livelihood and their life's work. I also regret that the Government has not told the local people what will happen in relation to local air restrictions and whether the operation of their farms, petrol engines and aerial spraying will affect the capacity of these signals. The local people need to be reassured about matters of basic operations of their properties so that they can have confidence in what is happening around them. On the face of the matter, as I have indicated, we certainly do not see urgency for this motion at this time and we certainly do not see that it is in the national interest at the moment for a Senate inquiry to seek further information. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(4.12) —The issue that is at stake here today-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! Senator Vallentine, are you seeking leave to make a personal explanation? Senator VALLENTINE —No, I will do that later if I may. I wish to enter into the debate. Senator Robert Ray —You are breaking a commitment. Senator VALLENTINE —I know an arrangement was made that there would be one speaker a side. Senator Robert Ray —A firm arrangement, as usual, was broken. Senator VALLENTINE —I do not belong to a side. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) has given a completely inadequate speech on this subject and therefore I feel absolutely compelled to speak, if only for a few moments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Proceed. Senator VALLENTINE —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. There are a couple of points that have not been brought out in this debate this afternoon that I think require comment at this stage. It is only because of the Minister's totally inadequate speech that I feel compelled-- Senator Robert Ray —You had 10 minutes this morning. Senator VALLENTINE —I had eight minutes this morning and then the debate was cut off. I am compelled now to reiterate some of the points that have not been made in this debate this afternoon. What is at issue here is the taxpayers' right to know what the Government is spending their money on. The Government has not answered the basic question of the huge discrepancy in the amount that was first bandied about of $20m to $25m, which it has not denied. At the time when the Age and the Australian Financial Review cited that amount of money, it did not deny that estimate. It is my assumption that both those newspapers got that figure from a reliable source; in other words, an unofficial statement from the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). The Government has not denied that and now we have the figure of $300m. The Government is refusing to give any explanation of that huge increase in costs, an astronomical increase in costs. So the Government has not told us about that, it has not told us about the function, nor has it given us any adequate explanation of the methodology of the land acquisition. (Quorum formed) I had just about finished my remarks. The main point I wanted to raise was the Government's lack of answers on the method of land acquisition, as well as the astronomical increase in costs. The Government, I believe, has been very irresponsible in its arrogant refusal to answer questions from concerned citizens. This is not the last that the Government will be hearing from the people of the Geraldton region or from Australian taxpayers in general. It is displaying a clear denial of the notion of government responsibility. I think that the Government ought to be responsible and ought to be held accountable for the decisions it is making on behalf of Australian taxpayers. Therefore, I commend this matter of urgency to all honourable senators. Question put: That the motion (Senator Wood's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 47 —— Coulter, J. R. Powell, J. F.Haines, J. Sanders, N. K.Jenkins, J. A. Vallentine, J.McLean, P. A. Wood, W. R.Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Alston, R. K. R. Jones, G. N.Archer, B. R. Knowles, S. C.Aulich, T. Lewis, A. W. R.Baume, Michael McGauran, J. J.Beahan, M. E. MacGibbon, D. J.Bishop, B. K. McKiernan, J. P.Black, J. R. Maguire, G. R.Bolkus, N. Messner, A. J.Boswell, R. L. D. Newman, J. M.Brownhill, D. G. C. Panizza, J. H.Burns, B. R. Parer, W. R.Chaney, F. M. Patterson, K. C. L.Chapman, H. G. P. Puplick, C. J. G.Childs, B. K. Ray, RobertCoates, J. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collins, R. L. Reynolds, M. E.Colston, M. A. Ryan, S. M.Cook, P. F. S. Schacht, C. C.Cooney, B. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W.Devereux, J. R. Stone, J. O.Devlin, R. Tambling, G. E. J.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S.Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W.Hill, R. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government) —In accordance with Senator Short's motion of 5 November 1987, I now present to the Senate draft regulations which have been prepared for the consideration of His Excellency the Governor-General after the enactment of the Migration Amendment Bill 1987. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I thank Senator Reynolds for tabling the draft regulations, following the request by the Opposition in regard to the Migration Amendment Bill 1987 that these key regulations, which are a fundamental part of the Bill that is being debated by the Senate, were needed in order for the Senate adequately to consider the Bill. I thank Senator Reynolds for giving me a little notice of the regulations, but they are detailed and in the time available, obviously, I have not had a chance to consider them in any detail. We will, of course, do that before the debate on the Bill resumes. At this stage I simply say that I regret that it was necessary to take the action that the Opposition did take to force the Government to let the Senate see the regulations before passing the Bill. The original intention on the Government's part was that we would pass the Bill sight unseen so far as the regulations were concerned, and trust in the good grace of the Government that the regulations in due course would be satisfactory. I think that was a totally unsatisfactory route to take. It was certainly not a basis on which the Opposition would be prepared to pass any important piece of legislation, of which, of course, this is a very important part. We will debate the detail of the regulations when the debate on the Bill resumes-presumably tomorrow or shortly thereafter. We will look again at the comments that have been made in the debate to date and particularly the comments that have been made by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which has drawn attention to some very considerable deficiencies and concerns in this Bill, particularly in relation to the clause to which these regulations relate. I thank Senator Reynolds for tabling these regulations. I am sorry that the Government was somewhat reluctant in tabling them in this chamber. We will now be able to proceed with a proper consideration of the Bill, as we should have been able to do from day one. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) -by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Robert Ray, in his speech in the chamber a short while ago when he claimed that my colleagues and I seem to have a personal block about the Soviet Union, that we never criticise the Soviet Union. I speak only on my own behalf: that is absolutely not true. I have often in this place questioned and criticised the actions of the Soviet Union, specifically in relation to the build-up of its naval forces in the Pacific, its presence in Afghanistan, its presence at Cam Ranh Bay and on human rights issues. I would be happy to provide Senator Ray with a list of the statements that I have made in this place and of Press statements that I have released to the media since I have been a senator-not all of which have been taken up, I might add. It is absolutely false to suggest that I have a mental block about the Soviet Union as a threat to world peace. Of course, I acknowledge that fact and I have often said in this place that I am opposed to nuclear weapons of all powers, no matter which political side of the fence they are on. I am opposed to nuclear weapons; I am not opposed to one super-power any more than the other in this regard. I really resent the fact that I have been accused of having a mental block about the Soviet Union. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I have never heard Senator Vallentine-- Senator Vallentine —I am happy to provide a list. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Vallentine said that I misled the Senate or misrepresented the position. I said that I have never heard her criticise the Soviet Union. I have never made any statement that Senator Vallentine has never criticised the Soviet Union. But she can accept my word-and it is truthful-that I have never heard her criticise the Soviet Union. I have never heard Senator Sanders or Senator Wood criticise the Soviet Union. That happens to be a fact, so Senator Vallentine was not misrepresented. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.30) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the operation of the Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984 gives a comprehensive account of the activities of the review committees established under the Act to deal with issues such as promotion, discipline, redeployment, retirement and reintegration into the Public Service. The report sets out case studies of how the Merit Protection and Review Agency set up under the Acts works. It is a report worthy of study. Being a public servant can be a hard and thankless task. For example, an awful strain is thrown on officers who face the public in Social Security offices. They have to deal with people in great distress who have often been reduced in status and wealth and who need understanding. At times these people do not get it because of the pressure under which those behind the counter work. This is an unhappy state of affairs. Those in distress and in need of help should be treated with sympathy. The public servants in Canberra that senators and members have most to do with are those who work in the parliamentary departments. The attention that they give to our needs is quite remarkable and they deserve our thanks. A group of people paid by the Commonwealth give might service to members and senators and to the proper conduct of the nation's business. I refer to the various staffers who attend senators and members. As I look around the chamber, I see many eminent senators who have been made eminent by the efforts put in on their behalf by their staff. In my own case, I have to mention Marcia O'Hara, who, I think all honourable senators would agree, has given me great, intelligent and outstanding service over the years. I would like to acknowledge her help in this regard. Indeed, I think I could say on behalf of all senators in the chamber that they would likewise thank their respective staffs for all of the efforts that they have put in on their behalf. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.32) —I also want to say a few words on the 1985-86 annual report of the Merit Protection and Review Agency. At the outset I would like to endorse entirely the remarks of my colleague Senator Barney Cooney concerning the staff that support us in the Senate-our own personal staff and the many others. I also place on record my appreciation of the work done by the vast majority of the Public Service as a whole. As Senator Cooney said, their task is thankless and very difficult. We are often highly critical of the Public Service while at the same time perhaps not giving full recognition to the great service it renders us. I am concerned that we have all witnessed over the last 10 to 15 years a very worrying trend in the Public Service towards what is commonly known as the politicisation of the Public Service. This trend, which I believe started with the Whitlam Government and which has continued since under successive governments, has done a great deal potentially to damage the reputation and efficiency of what until those times was, in my view, one of the great public services of the world. I think we have a very considerable problem on our hands in terms of the future of the Public Service if this increasing politicisation continues. The annual report before us is the first annual report of the Merit Protection and Review Agency. I wish to draw attention to the fact that it is the annual report for 1985-86 and, therefore, it is almost 18 months late in coming out. There is no explanation as to why the report is so late. I think it is a matter for concern that, if agencies of government are to be reviewed and if Parliament is to have knowledge of them, annual reports must come out much more quickly than is the case in this respect. I presume that the reasons for the lateness will be examined by Senate committees. The Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration would certainly be concerned about this. As Senator Cooney said, the report makes very interesting reading. It raises very important issues because the Agency, about which little is known, has a very important role to play. As is said on page 5 of the report: The object for which the Agency is established- that was in 1985- is to ensure that actions taken and decisions made in relation to a Commonwealth employee are fair and equitable and are taken or made in accordance with sound personnel management practices and with due regard being had to- (a) the efficiency of the relevant authority; and (b) the need to ensure good relations between the relevant authority and its employees. There are now within the ranks of government various organisations and agencies concerned with just those matters, particularly good personnel and management relations. These bodies include the Department of Industrial Relations itself, the Merit Protection and Review Agency and the Public Service Commissioner. We should look at-and this is what concerns me-whether there is a sufficient degree of co-ordination and common purpose between these agencies. The Merit Protection and Review Agency is a new body which will need review before too long, hopefully by this Senate, to ensure that the work that it is doing and is charged with is not merely duplicative of that of other organisations, or vice versa. That is perhaps something to look at a little way down the track, but it is a matter that I think we will need to take on board. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(4.36) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I would like to take up some of the points raised on pages 21 and 22 of the 1986-87 annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation in respect of the decentralisation of the tax processing function around Australia. Senator Michael Baume —There should be an office in Wollongong. Senator MAGUIRE —I think that is probably a commendable subject for investigation. I note in the Commissioner's report that in recent years new tax assessment offices have been located at Newcastle in New South Wales, where I believe many hundreds of jobs have been created, at Chatswood on the North Shore of Sydney and in Townsville in north Queensland-a relatively new office. In the report the Commissioner talks about a review being conducted into economies of scale and optimum sizes of tax offices. Apparently the preliminary evidence is that staff units of some 400 to 800 personnel could be the most efficient for tax processing. With that figure in mind, I would like to see an active investigation into the location of a decentralised office in my State of South Australia. In fact, some time ago I wrote to the relevant Minister suggesting that a new office be located in South Australia away from the Adelaide metropolitan area, probably in one of the northern Spencer Gulf cities of Whyalla, Port Pirie or Port Augusta. I think a number of white collar jobs could be created in those heavily industrialised cities of my State. I was pleased to note that the Mayor of Port Pirie, Mr Bill Jones, has endorsed the course of action that I have put forward for a decentralised tax office in one of those Iron Triangle cities. I think that such a move would be very important to the work force of those towns. Jobs are desperately needed in northern South Australia and a tax office located in this area would help to improve the position. Of course, the establishment of an office would add to the convenience of local residents, not just those in the Eyre Peninsula region of South Australia but also those who live in the far north of the State and who have to travel huge distances if they are required to go to Adelaide on taxation matters. So there would be a very important convenience factor involved in such a move. Of course, in making this suggestion, I am not in any way suggesting that there should be involuntary staff transfers. Obviously any move to decentralise the Australian Taxation Office in South Australia would have to be done after the fullest consultation with the staff involved. The report mentions taxation collections. I want to take up some points made last night by Senator Parer when he spoke on the appropriation legislation. I would have to say that Senator Parer is one of the more informed members of the Opposition, but he did not get it exactly right. He complained about the growth in tax collections in 1986-87 under this Government. Of course, as an Opposition member, always looking to be negative and to knock the Government, he did not look at the reasons for the rise in tax collections in 1986-87. For example, the Tax Commissioner's report makes it abundantly clear, I think, at page 2, that there were 225,000 more taxpayers in Australia in 1986-87 than in the previous year. One of the reasons for that-a very vital reason-was that a larger number of people were at work in Australia. Under this Government the number of jobs has increased enormously. In the last financial year Australia had an increase in average employment over the previous financial year of 191,500 jobs. That contrasts with the situation when Mr Howard was Treasurer, when 186,000 jobs were slashed from the Australian work force. While the number of jobs was reduced under Mr Howard, tax collections rose. That is the reality. Under Mr Howard, tax collections were up and jobs were down. The present situation is that there has been some growth in tax collections but, importantly, it has reflected an increase in the number of Australians at work. I note that fringe benefits tax collections in 1986-87 were 64 per cent above the Government's estimates. One reason for that is that we may have underestimated the extent of tax avoidance going on in the Australian community through the payment of benefits in a non-financial form, and this tax is now bringing the people involved to book. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.42) —Over recent years the Australian Taxation Office has had the unenviable task of administering the maze of tax legislation that this Government has brought forward. The Income Tax Assessment Act now comprises 1,356 pages of excessively complex, ambiguous legislation that is riddled with unintended consequences. It is no longer possible for tax consultants to operate on the basis of a detailed knowledge of the Act. They must now consult Press releases issued by the Treasurer-some of those are as much as 18 months old-look at rulings issued by the Australian Commissioner of Taxation, and keep in touch with the Tax Office so they are able to gauge the opinion of the Office on certain issues. Only in this way can they expect to keep abreast of developments in tax legislation. That is not good enough for open government. We have arrived at this situation despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a commitment during the 1984 election campaign to develop a simpler and fairer tax system that more Australians could understand. Now, more than ever before, the taxation area has become so specialised that more and more taxpayers are being forced to hand over the management of their affairs to tax consultants. In the last financial year the Tax Commissioner reports that his Office has been required to oversee the introduction of the fringe benefits tax; the capital gains tax; substantiation; quarterly provisional tax; imputation; and self-assessment rules. It is no wonder the Commissioner is behind in providing answers to this Parliament. To keep up with this program the Tax Office has had to increase its work force by 782, at a time when other departments are being required to tighten their belts. Telephone hotlines have been established to deal with the flood of inquiries-but still we have a host of unanswered questions; explanatory packages have been compiled and distributed; tax officers have addressed seminars; 35 forms, advices and circulars have been produced and distributed; and 16 new publications have been produced, a number of which have had to be revised and republished following changes subsequently announced by the Government. And still confusion reigns, so much that a review of the tax system has now been announced with the aim of devising a `simpler, more accessible and equitable tax system'. It is a bit late. It is well overdue. The fact is that if the Government had taken notice of the Liberal Party of Australia this review and legislation to withdraw and amend many ill-considered initiatives would not be necessary. One other point that is of some concern to me stems from comments by the Tax Commissioner, Mr Boucher, in his report. We are told that the Tax Office has shifted its auditing focus to `Go after the dollars'. No one would disagree that tax avoidance must be minimised. However, it is my concern that this ethos may translate into an overzealousness on the part of tax officers that has the potential to impinge upon the civil liberties of honest taxpayers. In the report before us, the Tax Commissioner himself acknowledges a degree of overzealousness on the part of some of his auditors and puts on the record his concern with the number of complaints that have been received concerning the way in which auditors have carried out their work. The proposed establishment of a special unit to resolve disputes with taxpayers is, I believe, evidence of the fact that there is a problem in this area. I trust the Tax Office will take steps to remedy these and other problems and not become carried away with the Hawke Government's apparent desire to extract more and more revenue from Australian taxpayers. I believe that such an underlying trend could do great harm to the Australian Labor Party. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.47) —As we are speaking to the 1986-87 annual report of the Australian Commissioner of Taxation, it is worth reflecting on the statistics on taxation collected for the period 1986-87 and on the anticipated collection for 1987-88. The seven million-plus taxpayers in Australia have an abiding interest in this and are concerned about the level of taxation. What are the facts? The Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in his Budget Speech that the Government had been able to cut taxes, restore integrity to the tax system and upgrade its administration. He said also that we have a fairer system, and so on. Has the Government really been able to cut taxes? The facts do not show that it has cut taxes at all. Since 1984-85, in just two years, the net revenue collected by way of income tax has increased by 30 per cent. If we take the three-year period, including the Forward Estimates for 1987-88, we see that the increase is 42.3 per cent. Does that represent a reduction in taxation for the general public? If one looks at the various statistics that are collected, one notices that total taxation revenue collected between 1982-83 and 1986-87-we must bear in mind that that was the period in which this Government came to power-increased by 60 per cent. Comparing that with income tax collections, including profit components, for the four-year period 1982-83 to 1986-87, we see that there was an increase of 65.8 per cent. More importantly, we must ask how that has affected the average wage earner in Australia. For the period 1982-83 to 1987-88, the estimated increase in average weekly earnings is 40 per cent. But what has happened to the average Australian's tax? It has gone up by well over 40 per cent. The average wage earner who paid, after deductions, a marginal tax rate of 30.416c in the dollar in 1982-83 now pays 41.25c. Therefore, the position of the average wage earner with deductions has deteriorated quite substantially under this Government. The Government claimed that with its famous tax reform it introduced some form of simplicity. I remind the chamber that yesterday I received a reply from the Australian Taxation Office to the simple question: How would one value capital gains for the farm-out of an exploration licence? The answer I received was that with regard to the farm-out arrangements for cash, work programs, commitments or a combination, the Commissioner of Taxation had issued a ruling. I received a copy of that ruling, which was nine pages long-nine pages for one simple question. So much for simplicity. The other question is one of equity. I mentioned yesterday in the appropriations debate that I had received information from a taxpayer in Brisbane that he was one year late in submitting his return and that the Taxation Office owed him money. He went to his accountant. The accountant contacted the Taxation Office, which advised the taxpayer to submit his return and said, `We will forget about it'. He submitted his return and was subsequently summonsed by the Office and had to pay a fine of $350. Most people do not mind being penalised, as long as the law is equitable. But the Treasurer (Mr Keating), a man who should be above reproach, was two years late submitting his tax return. As far as I know he has received no penalty. The question one must ask is whether there is a law for the ordinary person and a special law for the privileged. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.51) —Pursuing the question of equity, what is astounding about the annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation, which is before us today, is that a table in last year's report which showed clearly what had happened to people who were in the same predicament as the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has magically been dropped from this year's report. Last year we had the opportunity to see that, when the Treasurer failed to submit a tax return, he was one of a very large number of Australians who did so. In last year's annual report it was revealed that the Australian Taxation Office had imposed additional tax, totalling $43.4m, on 170,999 Australians who had failed to furnish returns or information. The footnote carefully pointed out: Where a taxpayer fails to lodge a return or furnish information by the required date, additional tax equal to double the tax payable is imposed by section 222 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. However, for cases that amount essentially to late lodgment of a return- I suppose that the Treasurer could say he was one such case- additional tax is normally remitted before the assessment issues to an amount equal to 20 per cent per annum of the tax payable, using the Commissioner's discretion given by sub-section 227 (3). This equates additional tax for late lodgment with late payment penalty . . . The figure of 170,999 late taxpayers should have been 171,000 because Mr Keating should have been on the list. But he was not on the list. Not only was he not on that list, but also he was not included on the opposite page of the report in the number of people who had been prosecuted for failing to furnish returns. Another 37,086 people paid penalties of $11,478,985. Is it not curious that those two tables, which outlined exactly the position the Treasurer was in last year and which compared his privileged treatment with the treatment meted out to all other Australian taxpayers in the same position, do not appear in the latest annual report of the Commissioner of Taxation which we are dealing with today? I wonder why. This Government had better tell us why. It should provide this information to us. I make the formal request now to the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), who is in the chamber, that this Parliament not be treated in this disgraceful way simply to limit the amount of embarrassment its Treasurer is causing it. I assure the Minister that not providing us with information as to what happens to the rest of Australians will not limit our determination to keep pointing out the special treatment meted out to the Treasurer in this curious way. I hope that the Tax Commissioner has a very sound reason for omitting these tables from the latest annual report. I hope that sound reason does not emerge from the pressure brought on him by the Treasurer himself, who is nominally the Minister responsible for the Taxation Office. The report reveals that over the last 10 years tax revenue and salary costs have roughly trebled but that, among gross costs, rent has gone up about 11 times. The annual report shows that rent for the Taxation Office in 1986-87 was $95.9m. Ten years ago it was $8.9m. When this Government came to office it was only $13.5m. There has been an extraordinary surge in rental costs. I presume that this may have something to do with the user pay principle. It is appropriate that that should be explained in the annual report because it means that there has been about a 90 per cent increase in the net cost of collecting tax over the life of this Government. It would be good to have an explanation from the Government on this score. It is the sort of question that could have been asked at Senate Estimates committee hearings had this annual report been available. The failure of this Government to make sure that either draft reports or the reports themselves are made available to the Senate Estimates committees means that this Parliament is not capable of doing the job which these committees were appointed to do. It is a disgrace that in so many instances this year we have been deprived of information and that reports have come out shortly after the committees have finished their investigations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.57) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I appreciate that only a brief amount of time is available to me to comment on a number of issues I want to pursue, largely the comments in the annual report of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs relating to the compact, the Bicentennial and land issues in the Northern Territory. In the opening remarks of Charles Perkins, the Secretary of the Department, he notes the 20-year operation of the Department since the 1967 referendum and the very great advancement Aboriginal people have made in that period. However, I take issue with Mr Perkins on one point. In his final comment he says: I am firmly of the belief that the creation of such an historic treaty and its inclusion in the Constitution is essential for the continued existence of Aboriginal people and their culture . . . That is not widely recognised and will create considerable debate in the coming year. Eight compacts or treaties with Aboriginal people already exist in Australia. In the budgets of this Parliament, the State parliaments and the Northern Territory Parliament, some $1,000m a year is appropriated for Aboriginal programs. We have to be careful with treaties and compacts that we do not, by legal recognition, solidify something which is constantly changing. This could be against the interests of Aboriginal people. The Department acknowledges that over $7m has been set aside for bicentennial projects. It was of particular note to me that a project at Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory, the Anyinginyi Congress Health Clinic, opened in 1986. The report states that it is `a source of great pride to the whole Tennant Creek community'. This was the first bicentennial project to be completed before 1988. Land issues require very careful consideration, particularly in regard to the Northern Territory where delicate negotiations are going on in the area of land excisions and stock routes. I urge that very careful and close consideration be given to this matter by the land councils. In the section of the report concerning the Department's use of external consultants it is noted that a report by a Mr Lineham on the accounting affairs of the Northern Land Council has not yet been presented and is not generally available. I believe that needs to be carefully looked at, along with the issue of why the land councils are exempt agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —On behalf of the President, I present the annual report of the Australian Audit Office for 1986-87. Senator POWELL(Victoria) —I present the fifteenth report of 1987 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, concerning the Australian National University Amendment Bill 1987, the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1987, the Community Services and Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1987, the Maritime College Amendment Bill 1987 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1987. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 16, dated 25 November 1987. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —I present the eighty-second report of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances on its examination of an amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(5.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 7 October 1987 the Senate asked the Committee to examine a proposed amendment to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act that was contained in the current Statute Law Bill. The amendment was designed to allow a regulation to come into effect at a specified time of the day or on the commencement of a specified Act. In the post-Australia Card atmosphere then prevailing, concern was expressed that such a provision, appearing in a Statute Law Bill, affecting the time and date of commencement of regulations could have been intended to allow controversial regulations to bypass the disallowance powers of Parliament. The Committee has examined the proposed amendment and the context in which it arose and we are satisfied that the proposals did not in any way arise in the context of consideration of Australia Card regulations. The Committee is also satisfied that the proposed amendment as such would not facilitate the avoidance of disallowance powers. However, in the course of its inquiries the Committee has realised that, regardless of these new amendments, the disallowance procedures of the Senate can already be bypassed by a procedure we have called the repeal and re-enactment device. This would allow a delegated lawmaker, quite lawfully, to frustrate the Senate's wish to disallow regulations by quickly repealing them and remaking them before disallowance could occur. Although there are, obviously, practical difficulties attached to this, this process could go on indefinitely. As a result of the Committee's recommendations the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has agreed to amend the Acts Interpretation Act to remove this loophole which could otherwise defeat the Senate's capacity to oversee subordinate laws made under parliamentary authority. The Committee will be pressing for the amendment to be made as soon as reasonably practicable. It will require careful drafting. I might add that the repeal and re-enactment loophole has not, to our knowledge, ever been exploited although it was known about as early as 1970, when Senator Lionel Murphy strongly criticised it as a possible means of defeating the Senate's supervisory role. The Committee takes some satisfaction in correcting this matter some 17 years after it was first raised in the Senate. The mills of the Regulation and Ordinance Committee grind slowly but exceeding small. The Committee has also persuaded the Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, to make a further slight amendment to his proposed amendment in the Statute Law Bill to ensure that the existing rule in the Acts Interpretation Act against retrospectivity is not inadvertently weakened as it might otherwise have been by the proposed amendment to section 48. Senator Tate has agreed to do this and the amendments have been circulated. The Committee thanks both Ministers for the assistance they have given us and for their readiness to meet the Committee's concerns to protect the disallowance mechanism of this Senate. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Committee for the way in which they handled this matter. Impinging as it did on the Australia Card issue and the role of the Senate, it could have been a difficult inquiry. The bipartisanship of the Committee members and their refusal to make political capital out of the Committee's work have been the hallmarks of the Committee for the past 50 years. These features were no less evident in this special inquiry than they are in our normal scrutiny activities. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.06) —I will be only brief, but, like Senator Lewis this morning, I think the occasion should not pass without noting a most important statement that has been made by Senator Collins on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. This goes to the very heart of the right of Parliament to audit and control executive government functions. I think it is to the credit of the people on the Committee that they have been able to so agree that Senator Collins is now in the position to make the statement that he has today. I agree with what Senator Lewis said this morning. Very often the very difficult work that is performed by those persons on the Committee is just taken for granted by the Senate. I believe that that was probably the burden of some of what Senator Lewis said today. But I do not think this occasion should pass. Here is the very essence of the responsibility of this Parliament to determine matters of major public importance. First of all, if the Government has a question of major public policy, it is appropriate that that question should be placed before the Parliament in substantive legislation. Then, of course, obviously there needs to be some regulation making power in that legislation which goes to the subordinate matters which are dealt with in the principal legislation. By definition, these subordinate matters should be not the matters of public importance that should be dealt with by the substantive legislation but regulatory matters, which are not matters of major public policy but are required to implement the policies determined in the substantive legislation. Unfortunately, there has been, as Senator Collins said, this loophole which could enable a government to get around the powers of either House to disallow regulations. We have a problem in respect of all regulations other than Australian Capital Territory ordinances in that we cannot amend regulations. Either they are disallowed or they become law. That being the case, it is important to ensure that, although the Government has not taken advantage of the loophole, the loophole is closed. I believe that if delegated legislation, such as regulations, is disallowed by either House of Parliament in South Australia the government of the day can immediately make further regulations in precisely the same terms. I think that is disconcerting, and I hope that other legislatures follow the bipartisan approach of this chamber on which Senator Collins reported to us today. I congratulate him and his Committee on placing this very important tabling statement before us. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(5.10) —As Deputy Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I support the remarks made by the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Collins, concerning the report he has just tabled. As the honourable senator indicated, the Committee has, in effect, given the proposed amendment to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act a clean bill of health as far as it might have facilitated any undermining of the Senate's disallowance powers. However, it is really quite fortuitous that Senator Lewis thought to have this matter referred to the Committee because almost incidentally to our inquiries we have discovered, or rather rediscovered, that it was already possible for a repeal and re-enactment procedure to defeat the Senate's disallowance power. If it were not for the fact that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) had given the Committee his undertaking to propose an amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act to stop this loophole I think the Senate may have had just cause to be very concerned about such a flaw. This is not so much because the device could be used to allow controversial regulations from the Executive Council and the Governor-General to avoid disallowance procedures, but rather the device could have been used by other delegated law makers, of whom there are a great number in the form of Ministers, their delegates, public servants and statutory bodies. As Senator Collins has indicated, it is an important gesture from the Attorney-General that he will act to remove the possibility of the repeal and the re-enactment device ever being used. I think the Attorney-General's readiness to rectify this situation reflects his perception that the Committee that asked for the amendment is a bipartisan committee and that the existence of adequate disallowance powers is a bipartisan issue going to the heart of the Senate's role as a House of review. The Acts Interpretation Act is unquestionably one of the most important Acts on the statute book because it contains the disallowance powers of the Parliament. I think a powerful argument could be made that if the Constitution needed amending, the first amendment should be to entrench the disallowance powers of the Senate in some practical way. The Committee's report also makes mention of other amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act which the Committee had asked for in 1985 and 1986 under Senator Cooney's chairmanship. These relate in part to the need for a power of partial disallowance of regulations to avoid the situation where the Senate is faced with an all or nothing position, where motions of disallowance on policy or political grounds must be dealt with. Blanket motions such as that can actually reduce the Senate's effectiveness because in difficult cases honourable senators may not wish to disallow a lot of useful provisions merely to eliminate a single bad provision. Alternatively, if the Senate does disallow, a Minister may lose a lot of perfectly good and useful provisions. I urge the Attorney-General to bring forward a suitable package of amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act as soon as possible. I too would like to place on record my thanks to the other members of the Committee for what is indeed a harmonious and effective committee of this Parliament. Senator STONE(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.13) —I will be brief on this matter but I feel that it is an important occasion that should not be allowed to pass without some comment from my own quarter of the chamber. As has been remarked, the reference of this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances arose because of action taken in this chamber by Senator Lewis during the hurried-one almost says, normally hurried-consideration of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill when, after some brief consultation on this side of the chamber, Senator Lewis raised for the attention of the Senate, I think, four elements of that Bill about which questions arose. The one which was referred to the Senate Regulations and Ordinances Committee was the one to which Senator Collins addressed his remarks this afternoon, namely, that relating to a proposed amendment of the Acts Interpretation Act. Of course, that action by Senator Lewis was taken in the context at the time of a particularly difficult situation in the Senate relating to the then Australia Card Bill. It no doubt gave some added point to the debate at that time. As Senator Collins has already said, I think it is a matter of satisfaction to all members of the Committee that on examination the particular provision under notice, in fact, was found to have had no connection with the Australia Card Bill at the time. That has been put on the record by Senator Collins and, indeed, is reported on as such in those terms by the Committee. But as the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Collins, has said, the Committee's deliberations discovered-and as the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Senator Bishop, has just said, rediscovered-a particularly important loophole, I think it can only be so described, in the Acts Interpretation Act. That is a loophole which, given the fundamental importance of that Act to the operation of the Parliament, really should not be allowed to persist any longer. When I say that it is of fundamental importance to the Parliament, I think it has been claimed with justice that it is, of course, with the exception of the Constitution itself, perhaps the most important statute on the statute books of the Commonwealth. It is so important of course because fundamentally it governs the relationship between the Parliament on the one hand and the Executive Government, that is Ministers, on the other hand. While we naturally in this chamber and, indeed, in another place contest between one side and the other for actions on the part of Executive Government, nevertheless there are matters in which both sides of this chamber not only should join but also, I am happy to say, very often do join in a defence of the rights of the people, as distinct from the powers of Executive Government and Ministers. I think those points have been cogently made this afternoon or, touched upon at least, by Senator Harradine. I take this opportunity of saying that I agree very much with what he had to say. I would simply like to conclude by saying, as others have done, that I too would like to join in congratulating the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) who, I am glad to see, is just entering the chamber and his colleague in the other place, the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, for the proper consideration they have given to the views of the Committee in these important questions and the extent to which they have, again I think quite properly, dealt with them-although, I am afraid bitter experience suggests that Ministers are not always so compliant to the views put to them by others. In this case I am very glad to say that the two Ministers concerned have been entirely proper in their attitude towards the suggestions made to them by Senator Collins in his capacity as Chairman of that Committee. Finally, I would like to make a personal tribute to Senator Collins as Chairman of the Committee for his devoted work. I think it can quite properly be described as such, given the extent to which this Committee has been meeting at all hours of the day and night, not only on this subject, I should add. It is proper to put down a tribute to the personal contribution Senator Collins has made to this outcome. I take great pleasure in doing so. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia) —by leave-On behalf of Senator Crowley, I tabled further additional information received by Estimates Committee C. Consideration resumed. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.20) —I table the explanatory memorandum and move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill, which is based on the Bill of the same name which was passed by the House of Representatives during the autumn sittings, has been revised and extended in consultation with major banks. I welcome the banks' co-operation in the preparation of this legislation and their commitment to assisting law enforcement agencies in the fight against crime. The Bill represents one of the most significant initiatives to counter the underground cash economy, tax evasion and money laundering. It is notorious that the underground cash economy provides great scope for tax evasion both domestically and internationally. It is clear that traditional investigative techniques have been ineffective in identifying financiers of major crime, because of the ease with which such persons are able to distance themselves from the actual criminal conduct. However, experience both in Australia and overseas has shown that criminal financiers associate more closely with the profits of crime. That experience also shows that cash is an important part of financing criminal activity. Recent investigations have confirmed that numerous accounts have continued to be opened in false names and millions of dollars in cash have been laundered through those accounts. The financial institutions have agreed to co-operate with law enforcement bodies and to implement new procedures in an endeavour to prevent the abuse of their services by criminals. Financial institutions have sought an avenue for reporting suspect transactions, of any kind, to law enforcement agencies. This Bill provides that avenue. The Bill also creates an offence of opening or operating an account in a false name. This Bill will give law enforcement agencies the ability to monitor the movement of large amounts of cash and thus to identify tax evaders and the recipients of proceeds of crime. The legislation is consistent with calls by a number of royal commissions and other inquiries in recent years for stronger measures to deal with the widespread abuse of the facilities of financial institutions in relation to tax fraud and other criminal activities. The Bill implements a scheme for the reporting of certain large currency transactions conducted through various institutions and certain transfers of currency into and out of Australia. The Bill provides comprehensive measures for the control of the cash economy and minimisation of tax evasion. These include the requirement that certain types of transactions be reported to the Cash Transactions Reports Agency. The reportable transactions include large-scale cash transactions, any suspect transactions, the export of foreign currency and the import of foreign and Australian currency over a prescribed level. These reports will be supplemented by the verification of the identity of account holders whose accounts exceed a prescribed limit. Honourable senators will note that this limited verification requirement is not as extensive as the provisions of the earlier Bill which was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Parliament. The Government has accepted the arguments of the financial institutions that the verification of all accounts would be too great a burden. The Government also recognised that the banks are not able to verify existing accounts despite the best intentions behind their voluntary code for opening accounts. Accordingly, this Bill places the onus of verification on the customer. However, many customers, particularly infants and the elderly, would be greatly inconvenienced if the verification required applied to their small accounts and transactions. Therefore, such small accounts have been exempted by setting a prescribed transaction, deposit limit. The reporting and verification will be of great value in following the money trail for proceeds of all criminal activities, including tax evasion, and in detecting financiers of criminal activity such as drug trafficking. The thrust of the scheme is broadly similar to the successful scheme in operation in the United States. The Attorney-General's visit earlier this year to the United States confirmed that the ability to monitor the movements of large amounts of cash, both domestically and internationally, is an essential aspect of the fight against organised crime and has very substantial benefits in the effective collection of revenue. United States officials informed him that several hundred million dollars were recovered last year from their export/import reporting requirements alone. Objects of Bill The principal object of the Bill is to facilitate the administration and enforcement of taxation laws. Further objects of the Bill are to facilitate the administration and enforcement of laws of the Commonwealth, and of a Territory, and to make information collected under the Bill available to State law enforcement authorities to facilitate the administration and enforcement of State laws. Content of Bill The Bill provides for the reporting of certain cash transactions and transfers, as well as all suspect transactions. It establishes the Cash Transactions Reports Agency and, in addition, imposes certain obligations on cash dealers and their customers in relation to the operation of accounts. Cash Transaction Reports The Bill requires cash dealers, including financial institutions and others, such as bookmakers and casinos, who have the capacity to receive and commingle large amounts of cash, to report cash transactions to which they are a party, and which involve currency in excess of $10,000 to the Director of the Cash Transactions Reports Agency. All transactions, other than exempt transactions, must be reported. Exemptions may be granted to certain high cash flow businesses, to employers for payroll withdrawals, to Government agencies, and may relate to individual transactions or to certain classes of transactions. Financial institutions will be required to maintain an exemption register. The Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency will have access to any exemption register and will have power to direct a financial institution to remove or amend any entry in the exemption register maintained by the institution. Reports Relating to Import and Export Currency The Government considers it essential to be able to monitor the movement of funds into, and out of, Australia and has therefore provided the Cash Transaction Reports Agency with a monitoring role in relation to the export of foreign currency, and the import of any currency, in excess of $5,000. No other checks are maintained on the movement of funds into, or out of, Australia. As a further check on the movement, and destination of funds, any person in Australia who receives Australian or foreign currency from a place outside Australia will be required to report the receipt of those funds to the Cash Transaction Reports Agency if the value of the currency involved exceeds $5,000. The Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations confer on customs, and police officers wide-ranging powers to question persons leaving Australia and to inspect their luggage for the purpose of ascertaining currency violations and the Bill provides those officers with similar powers in relation to ensuring that relevant CTR reports have been filed. Reports of Suspect Transactions As I indicated earlier, all cash dealers will be obliged to report details of any transaction, regardless of its nature of the amount involved, which the dealer suspects may be relevant to offences against Commonwealth laws. There are very real concerns on the part of cash dealers that by assisting law enforcement agencies they may leave themselves open to a suit for breach of confidence of defamation. Accordingly, the legislation provides that a cash dealer is immune from such suits when providing information about a suspect transaction to the Director, or an officer investigating the transaction. By providing such information a cash dealer also protects itself against prosecutions for money laundering. Obligations in Relation to Accounts Following the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission and the refusal of this Chamber to pass the Australian Card legislation, which would have provided an effective weapon against tax evasion and fraud, the Government considers it essential to include in this Bill provisions dealing with the verification of the identity of persons operating accounts with cash dealers. The system for the verification of identity provided in this legislation places some obligations on cash dealers and their customers but it should be borne in mind that banks already require some form of identification before opening accounts. The essence of the scheme is a statutory declaration by which an acceptable referee corroborates the identity of a person seeking to open an account. Failure to comply with the verification requirements can result in unverified signatories being prevented from withdrawing funds from the account and, ultimately, that person's interest in the account being forfeited to the Commonwealth. The Bill, of course, contains mechanisms designed to protect the interests of innocent third parties. Accounts in False Names The National Crime Authority has expressed grave concern over the proliferation of accounts in false names, which it has rightly identified as a major impediment in the fight against crime. I am sure that other law enforcement agencies share this concern. However, as the law now stands it is not illegal to open, or operate, a bank or other account in a false name. The law enforcement community and the banks have called for this situation to be rectified. This Bill creates offences of opening or operating accounts in false names. These provisions will put an end to the practice of tax cheats and criminals hiding their ill-gotten gains behind a veil of respectability. Access to CTR Information The legislation provides that all CTR information is to be provided to the Director of the Cash Transaction Reports Agency. The Agency is to make the information available to the Commissioner of Taxation on a direct and unrestricted basis. Other law enforcement agencies, including the Australian Customs Service, the National Crime Authority and State law enforcement agencies, may also seek access to CTR information. All CTR information may be utilised by relevant agencies for both evidentiary and investigative purposes. Enforcement Part IV of the Bill creates offences of structuring transactions and transfers to avoid the reporting requirements, failure to comply with, and providing false and misleading information in purported compliance with, the Bill. An injunction mechanism in relation to breaches of the legislation, particularly where there is a contravention committed by an agency which would otherwise fall within the shield of the Crown, is also available. Financial Impact Statement The Bill will have only a modest impact on cash dealers required to report cash transaction information as the legislation provides sufficient flexibility to enable the Director of the Agency to develop the most cost-effective measures for cash dealers to record and communicate information to the Agency. In relation to the public sector, the legislation will require the establishment of a Cash Transaction Reports Agency and the purchase of sophisticated computer facilities for the Agency. However the Australian Taxation Office projects an increase in tax revenue alone of some $30m. In addition, the United States' experience indicates that there will be significant criminal law enforcement benefits. Based on annual Agency running costs of $2m per annum (with an extra $1m for establishing computer facilities) the measures are clearly cost-effective. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.22) —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- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 1987 This Bill proposes a series of amendments to the principal Customs Act 1901 and Excise Act 1901, the most important of which are the amendments to the valuation provisions of the Customs Act 1901 (division 2 of part VIII) and the introduction of consequential enforcement and penalty provisions- To effect the second instalment of the Government's strategy to combat commercial practices designed solely or predominantly to understate the value of imported goods, so as to minimise or avoid customs duty. With respect to the proposed amendments to the valuation provisions of the Customs Act, which are contained in clause 12 of this Bill, honourable senators will recall that the Government announced in the second reading stage of the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill last sittings that it would be introducing further amendments to the valuation provisions of the Customs Act, to augment the reforms of that first Bill. The focus of the valuation amendments in this Bill is the rearrangement of the various provisions in division 2 of part VIII of the Customs Act into a more logical and easy to follow sequence, and the highlighting of the various types of costs, charges and agreements relating to goods which will be included or excluded for the purposes of assessing the customs value of the goods. There are also some important new provisions and amendments that are designed to combat minimisation and avoidance practices used by some importers in valuing goods for duty purposes. Once again, I should emphasise that the Government is not accusing all importers of engaging in avoidance practices. However, experience has shown that some importers have entered arrangements that are designed solely to reduce assessable customs value and thereby reduce duty liability. The Government is therefore of the view that any opportunity for abuse must be removed as soon as it is discovered. The extent to which minimisation and avoidance practices erode the revenue and existing assistance levels is reflected in the many submissions and complaints received from local manufacturers and producers concerning the commercial advantage which some importers enjoy as a result of their avoidance of correct duty. Investigations and enquiries by the Australian Customs Service into the activities of importers regarding the valuation of imported goods often lead to the imposition of additional duty and/or litigation being commenced either by the Customs Service or the importer. Allow me to demonstrate some known avoidance practices which this Bill will eliminate. The inclusion of inland freight charges in customs value is presently being avoided through the payment of these charges by the purchaser to a third party. Because the vendor invoices the goods to the purchaser at an ex-factory level, the inland freight charges under the current provisions of the act are not included in the customs value, as only payments from the purchaser to the vendor are presently dutiable. It is important to note that investigations of the industries assistance commission into appropriate levels of industries assistance are based on free-on-board prices (that is, the price of the goods at the point of exportation). New section 154 in clause 12 of the Bill extensively redefines `Place of export', `foreign inland freight' and `foreign inland insurance' to eliminate the practice of using third party forwarders to avoid duty on inland freight charges. Another area of avoidance is in overseas freight charges. To achieve the correct customs value for duty purposes, particularly on cost-insurance-&-freight invoices, the Australian Customs Service must be sure that the actual overseas freight paid or payable is deducted from the invoice price. It is the experience of customs that freight costs are being manipulated in various ways, to decrease the customs value (by overstating freight), or to increase the customs value (by understating freight) in order to avoid dumping duties. There are also practices which indirectly affect the amount of duty paid or payable. The main method here is the payment of rebates by shipping companies to the overseas vendor to purchasers in Australia. The result is that true duty liability is effectively concealed until after importation, resulting in a substantial loss to revenue. The new definition of overseas freight is designed to give Customs the power to question freight costs shown on invoices and commercial shipping documents to establish the actual freight paid or payable. A third practice which I will mention briefly is the deduction of so-called buying commissions. Buying commission is an allowable deduction from the price if it is genuine. The problem being experienced by Customs in this area is the difficulty in determining what is a true buying commission. The new section 155 in clause 12 of the Bill is designed to specify situations which preclude agents from holding themselves out to be genuine buying agents. It is the intention of this legislation to eliminate these practices, and others, which have provided opportunities for avoidance of duty through the minimisation of the value of imported goods. An integral part of these reforms, which was foreshadowed last sittings, is the inclusion of appropriate information-gathering and auditing powers for Customs, to verify information supplied to it, together with new and tougher sanctions for the provision of false or misleading information. New section 159 in clause 12 imposes a clear responsibility on persons entering goods which are required to be valued to estimate the customs value of the goods, and to provide details on how the value was determined. If Customs is not satisfied with the assessment or supporting information it can seek additional information or undertake an audit of the transaction. The focus on self-assessment for customs duty purposes was begun in 1985, when the Customs Service introduced streamlined procedures for the entry and clearance of imported goods. These procedures now result in almost 90% of cargo arriving in Australia by either air or sea being cleared from Customs control within 4 hours of the entry being lodged with customs. In many instances the cargo is still being discharged from the aircraft or ship. Further enhancements to the computer system and procedures are planned or being developed and in approximately 2 years it is anticipated that the process will be fully automated. The streamlined procedures provide for the balance (some 10%) of the import transactions to come under close scrutiny. The transactions are selected using ``risk assessment techniques'' and ``profiles''. This process, similar to that used by the taxation office, will require Customs audit officers to visit importers and closely study commercial documents relevant to the import transaction, to ensure that the goods have been correctly valued for Customs purposes and the appropriate duty paid. Clause 22 includes a new power for Customs officers to enter premises on which commercial documents relating to information that was supplied to Customs for purposes connected with the entry of goods are kept, to inspect, examine etc. those documents, for the purposes of verifying that information. Clause 25 introduces a new requirement for importers to keep the commercial documents relating to the goods which they have imported for a period of 5 years. The Government believes both these new provisions will enable the auditing process which I have outlined to be effectively carried out. The Bill also provides in clause 26 for automatic penalties to be imposed, in instances where duty evasion has been detected. These provisions, which again are similar to those in taxation legislation, will be used in lieu of the seizure of goods and the costly and protracted litigation which inevitably follows such actions. Financial Impact Statement The financial impact of the valuation amendments contained in this Bill are considerable. While it cannot be quantified to any exact degree, I will endeavour to show by example that the loss to the revenue by use of such practices cannot be ignored. In regard to third party inland freight agreements, if the motor vehicle industry of one exporting country changed to ex-factory contacts, and its Australian purchasers employed third-party forwarders, the loss of duty receipts would conservatively amount to $5.2m in one year, seriously affecting the local motor vehicle industry. Exact quantification of duty short-fall caused by manipulation of overseas freight charges cannot be achieved, due to the various methods employed to manipulate freight amounts. Rebates given by shipping companies to preferred customers are the most common cause of duty short-fall but, because the practice is widespread and most often occurs overseas, it can only be said that the loss to the revenue could amount to many millions of dollars per annum. By claiming a deduction for a buying agent's commission where the agent is related to the vendor, it was estimated early this year that one major importer had saved about $4m customs duty in a year. If all the major importers adopted the practice, there would be a revenue loss of $90m per annum. The new section 155 proposed in clause 12 lists various things that a genuine buying agent cannot do, and it is estimated that this provision will eliminate many commissions currently being deducted from customs value as buying commissions under the current provisions. I repeat the statement I made on the Customs (Valuation) Amendment Bill in the last sittings, that the effect of these practices on local industry has not been quantified, but it is obvious that any erosion of assistance levels by avoidance and minimisation practices can only be detrimental to local industry and employment. These measures are designed to remove this erosion and restore a stable valuation base. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. PETROLEUM EXCISE (PRICES) BILL 1987 The principal purpose of this Bill is to provide for using the volume weighted average price for sales of Bass Strait crude oil as the price basis for levying excise on crude oil produced from the Bass Strait from 1 January 1988, the date on which Australia's crude oil market will be deregulated. This Bill should be read in conjunction with the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1987 which is within the portfolio of the Minister for Industry Technology and Commerce. The introduction of this Bill and other associated legislative amendments is an essential step in implementing the Government's decision to deregulate crude oil marketing in Australia with effect from 1 January 1988. Deregulation will permit all of Australia's crude oil producers and refiners to negotiate freely the quantities and prices of crude oil they buy and sell without Government involvement. The Government believes that this freeing of the crude oil market will optimise Australia's future crude oil self sufficiency consistent with the efficient allocation of resources. The deregulation decision means that the Allocation Scheme for crude oil and Import Parity Pricing will be abolished, and the Bass Strait Coastal Freight Adjustment Scheme, used to compensate refiners remote from Bass Strait for their higher costs of transporting allocated crude, will then be terminated. Except in times of emergency and subject to other relevant policies, such as the prohibition of exports to South Africa, Australia's crude oil producers will have complete freedom to export as an alternative to selling on the domestic market and refiners will have the freedom to import crude oil. This decision followed a six-month review of the present import parity pricing and market allocation arrangements. The review took into account the views of State Governments, producers and refiners, trade unions and consumers. It also looked closely at the impact of a free market on crude oil and product prices, Government revenues and the balance of payments. It was concluded that, in the light of changed circumstances in the overall marketing environment, the benefits of deregulation would now outweigh the costs. The changes included a substantial decline in world oil prices, substantial changes in the Australian exchange rate and balance of payments situation and, above all else, the start of the long anticipated decline in Bass Strait production which, in the absence of major new discoveries, will mean a steady rise in the volume of imported crude oil. The financial impact of moving to a free market for crude oil will depend on the extent to which crude oil prices fall after deregulation. In a deregulated market, average Bass Strait crude oil prices could be expected initially to fall between $A1 and $A4 from what they would have been under import parity pricing. A price fall in the middle of this range, of say $A2.50 per barrel, would result, when passed through to the consumer, in petrol prices falling by around 1.3c per litre. Although this could mean a drop in government revenue from the crude oil excise of about $100m in 1987-88 and $168m in 1988-89 the Government is committed to not offsetting this reduced revenue by compensating adjustments to petroleum product excise, so that the full benefit of any crude oil price reductions is passed on to the consumer. This potential drop in revenue was, of course, taken into account as part of the Budget considerations. In reaching the decision to deregulate the crude oil market the Government considered the previously expressed concerns of the parties affected. Small producers, with production of less than 5,000 barrels per day, were concerned that they would be disadvantaged after deregulation because of their small production volumes, remoteness from infrastructure and lack of marketing skills. It was decided that the best way of providing support for the existing small producers was to obtain assurances from refiners that they will continue to lift the output of small producers in a timely manner and at fair market prices. Responses have been given by refiners that indicate these conditions will be met. In addition, small producers will now have options other than to sell to refiners. These will include selling to large producers and pipeline owners or having them act as marketing agents, using the services of commodity brokers or trading companies, forming selling co-operatives or consortia or exporting their oil. Indeed all producers, small or large, may well find opportunities in a free market which were not available or considered in a regulated market. Assurances have also been obtained from refiners that deregulation would not result in the closure of any Australian refinery and refiners will maintain their existing arrangements for Australian flag shipping, albeit with some changes to shipping patterns. Although it is not possible to be sure of the balance of payments effects of deregulation in advance, it is likely that the net effect on the value of imports and exports of crude oil is likely to be either neutral or positive. Major refiners have argued that deregulation will give Australian refiners access to different grades of imported crude oil suitable for their technologically advanced refineries at prices significantly below current domestic rates. Consequently some higher quality Australian crude oil will be exported but this should be at higher prices than the imports, resulting in a net balance of payments gain. Other opportunities that oil industry analysts have identified as potentially flowing from deregulation are in the export of refined products based on Australia's sophisticated refineries, and excellent local gasoline feedstock. Also deregulation could open the way for further foreign investment in Australian oil exploration and development. As part of moving to the free market and at the same time maintaining the flow of revenue to the Commonwealth, an excise system for crude oil based on prices achieved in the free market is required rather than one based on the Government imposed import parity price. This will ensure that the final price base for excise will not be higher than the average prices received by the producers. The crude oil excise rates will be unchanged from those currently in force. This Bill sets out the system of calculating those prices. It is directed towards oil production from the Bass Strait as this is currently the only production area producing excisable oil. Production from areas on-shore will become excisable in the event that production exceeds the 30 million barrel excise free threshold. The price basis for excising such onshore oil production will be considered at the appropriate time. The basic principle of the proposed new crude oil excise system is that excise will be levied on crude oil from Bass Strait using the volume weighted average of realised f.o.b. prices of all sales in a calendar month-referred to in the Bill as volware prices. The basis for volware prices will be the realised price of oil at the point of entry for home consumption. This is the price of the oil as it is loaded on a ship at Long Island Point and Crib Point. For pipeline transactions, it will be the realised pipe inlet prices at Long Island Point. The price will be based on payment within 15 days, with an allowance for the extended credit terms in excess of 15 days. Where the contracts for the sale of oil include shipping costs incurred after the point of entry for home consumption and to be borne by the producer, then those shipping costs attributable to actual shipments will be deductible from the contract price. They will include freight, insurance, wharfage and other port charges at the port of destination, demurrage at the delivery end which falls to the producer under a c.i.f. contract and is clearly not caused by the producer, lightering at the port or destination, cargo inspection costs, heating of the cargo on the ship and bunkers. The Bill makes provision for the determination of three prices for each month of sales. The first, the reference price, will be an estimate of the volware price made before the beginning of the month in question and will be used to calculate the producer's initial excise liability and payments for that month. This price will be based on the most recent interim volware price that has been set, and adjusted for other appropriate factors such as movements in world market prices for crude oil and changes in $A/$US exchange rate. The second, the interim volware price, will be calculated not later than one month after the end of the month in which the oil is sold, based on information provided by the producers about their sales in the month. Once determined, it will replace the reference price as the basis for excise calculations. Third, as some of that information may still be provisional, after six months, or earlier if final information is available, a final volware price for the month will be determined. Once determined, this final volware price will replace the interim volware price and will be the basis of the producers' final excise liability. The method of calculating the transaction prices for use in establishing volware prices will be set out in regulations. Each of these prices will be notified to the producers and the Australian Customs Service, and the producers' excise liabilities will be adjusted as appropriate in subsequent excise payments. Because of their commercial sensitivity the prices will not be published. As a result of the progressive adjustments to the producers' excise liabilities and payments following the determinations of volware prices, there should not be substantial amounts of excise rebates or additional excise liability outstanding for long periods of time. The Bill contains provisions requiring the producers to provide the Department of Primary Industries and Energy with the information required to calculate these prices within a time limit to be specified in the Gazette. There are also provisions for auditing of the information. Basing the excise on an average price gives the producers an incentive to maximise the price they receive above the average and therefore to reduce their effective excise rate. However, the Bill also has provisions to give Ministers the power to determine the price for any sale when any part of the sales transaction is considered not to be at `arm's length' and a price has been arranged which would reduce the revenue due. This Bill provides for an effective and equitable system of collecting excise on crude oil production. It is a major component in the implementation of the Government's decision to deregulate the Australian crude oil market. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to honourable senators. EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1987 This Bill proposes amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921, principally to incorporate into that Act various excise tariff proposals tabled in this Parliament during the last sittings and early in this sittings, and to give effect to changes to the excise arrangements for crude oil that follow from the Government's decision to deregulate crude oil marketing with effect from 1 January 1988. The proposed deregulation arrangements contained in clauses 8 to 10 inclusive of the Bill, amend the Excise Tariff Act to change the basis of calculating the excise due on the production of crude oil from Bass Strait from one based on the import parity price to one based on the volume weighted average prices realised for crude oil sales by the Bass Strait producers, as determined according to the provisions of the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Bill 1987, for which my colleague the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has carriage. On 21 June the then Minister for Resources and Energy announced the Government's decision to completely deregulate crude oil marketing with effect from 1 January 1988. This will permit refiners and all crude oil producers to negotiate freely the quantities and prices of crude oil they buy and sell without Government involvement. The Government believes that moving to a free market for crude oil will optimise Australia's future crude oil self sufficiency consistent with the efficient allocation of resources. This move will enable the Australian crude oil industry to develop strongly in future for the benefit of the Australian community. From 1 January 1988 the Government will no longer determine import parity prices as the basis for transactions of domestic crude oil and the determination of excise. Clause 8 of this Bill provides for excise to be determined on the basis of volume weighted average of realised prices for sales of Bass Strait crude oil, known as the volware price. These prices will be determined each month by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy under the provisions of the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Bill. The initial excise liabilities of the crude oil producers for each month will be calculated on the basis of reference prices notified to the producers and the Australian Customs Service. These prices will be based on recent volware prices and other factors such as movements in world oil market prices for crude oil and changes in exchange rates. Interim volware prices for the month will also be calculated on the basis of sales information provided by the producers and notified during the following month. The producers' initial excise liabilities will be adjusted from those calculated using the reference price, and thereafter, interim prices will form the basis of excise liability until final volware prices are determined. The provisions of this Bill introduce arrangements which will allow adjustments to be made to the producers' crude oil excise liability which result from using reference, interim and final volware prices. These arrangements will mean that the adjustments to the producers excise liabilities will be effected automatically following the determination of the volware prices, and thereby avoid the situation whereby excise liability could have remained outstanding for long periods. The import parity price adjustments, at clauses 13, 15 and 16 of the Bill, continue the Government's policy since 1 March 1986 to fully offset changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty by across the board changes in excises payable on petroleum products. The net result of this policy is that as crude oil prices change, Government revenues remain the same overall and petrol price changes are kept to a minimum. On 1 May 1987, the IPP of indigenous crude oils were decreased to reflect an appreciation of the Australian dollar against the US dollar, and the excise rates on refined petroleum products were correspondingly increased with effect from 16 May 1987 (clause 13). On 1 July 1987 and 1 August 1987 the IPP of indigenous crude oils were increased to reflect upward movements in world oil prices and, consistent with the Government's policy, the excise rates on refined petroleum products were reduced with effect from 18 July 1987 (clause 15) and 15 August 1987 (clause 16) respectively. Clauses 6, 8 and 14 of the Bill give effect to the Government's decisions following its review of new petroleum taxation arrangements, to remove distortions and disincentives to petroleum exploration and development in Australia. The review follows the Government's undertaking at the time of the Energy 2000 conference in September 1986, where the oil industry pressed strongly for the removal of all secondary taxation on petroleum production, arguing that the existing taxation regime was making Australia an unattractive place to invest in exploration and development. The Government's review established that some changes to the existing arrangements are necessary, given the reduction in the level of world crude oil prices and continuing uncertainty in their future levels, to ensure that Australia can continue to attract oil exploration and development investment. The package of concessions will apply to both existing crude oil production and new projects where excise and royalty apply, namely Bass Strait, North West Shelf and on-shore areas. Elsewhere off-shore, the resource rent tax regime announced in 1984 will continue to apply. The key elements in the new excise package are as follows: Confirmation that the maximum rate of `old' oil excise will not be restored to 87 per cent of the import parity price and that there will be a progressive lowering of the top marginal rate of excise on such oil from 80 per cent to 75 per cent over the next 3 years; exemption from excise of the first 30 million barrels of crude oil production from new off-shore projects where excise and royalty apply; exemption from excise of the first 30 million barrels of crude oil produced from onshore fields; exemption from excise of condensate marketed separately from crude oil; and exemption from excise of LPG produced onshore. Clause 14 of the Bill also includes an increase in the excise duty rate on aviation gasoline. This follows extensive consultation with the general aviation industry on the most appropriate cost recovery and charging arrangements to apply in 1987-88, and the Government's decision to adopt a suggestion made by the industry to place a surcharge on aviation gasoline (avgas) fuel excise. This proposal, which sets the surcharge at 3.9c a litre, has the full support of all the major general aviation organisations. The surcharge replaces the previous fixed annual air navigation charges which had been payable by general aviation aircraft. In addition to the surcharge general aviation avgas aircraft will pay landing charges at the major airports scheduled for transfer to the Federal Airports Corporation. General aviation aircraft using aviation kerosene (avtur) will pay landing charges for all operations on the same basis as airline aircraft. The final major inclusion in this Bill, at clause 5, effects a change to the operation of section 6a of the Act, relating to the automatic indexation of rates of duty. Presently the Act provides for rates of duty to be adjusted on the 1st of February and 1st of August in accordance with movements in the consumer price index. This is dependent however, on the Australian Statistician publishing the index number at least seven days before these dates. If this does not occur, which has been the majority of cases, the new rate is determined by Gazette notice. Uncertainty concerning the commencement date of the new rates is causing undue disruption to business involved with implementing the new rates. To simplify procedures the proposed amendment will provide that in cases where the Australian Statistician does not publish the index number at least five days before 1 February or 1 August, then the new rates will take effect five days after the Australian Statistician publishes the index number. Financial Impact Statement (A) DEREGULATION OF CRUDE OIL MARKETING ARRANGEMENTS (CLAUSES 8-10 INCLUSIVE) The financial impact on crude oil excise receipts resulting from the proposed arrangements for the deregulated or a free market for crude oil will depend on the extent to which crude oil prices vary after deregulation. In the current international climate and in a deregulated market, average Bass Strait crude oil prices could be expected to fall between $A1-$A4 per barrel from what they would have been under import parity pricing. On the basis of a price fall of $A2.50 per barrel, the drop in Government revenue in 1987-88 and 1988-89 is expected to be about $100m and $168m respectively. There will be no offsetting product excise adjustment to recoup revenue foregone by the Government as a result of any drop in crude oil prices following deregulation. (B) IMPORT PARITY PRICE ADJUSTMENTS (CLAUSES 13, 15 AND 16 (b to g)) The increase in refined petroleum product excise rates due to the changes in the import parity prices effective from 16 May 1987 is expected to result in an increase in revenue of about $20m in 1986-87. The decrease in refined petroleum product excise rates effective from 1 July 1987 and 1 August 1987 is expected to result in decreases in revenue of about $7.2m and $82.7m respectively in 1987-88. The changes in the excise rates following changes to the import parity prices exactly offset the forecast changes in revenue from crude oil excise and royalty. (C) NEW PETROLEUM TAXATION ARRANGEMENTS (OFFSHORE AND ONSHORE) CLAUSES 6, 8 AND 14 (b to d) The introduction of the new excise concessions on crude oil and LPG from 1 July 1987 are forecast to reduce Commonwealth and State government revenues by $18m in 1987-88 and by $297m in the five years to 1991-92. Higher production levels as a result of the new concessions will generate additional excise and royalty receipts which are expected to more than compensate for the cost of the concessions based on previous production forecasts by the producers: In 1987-88, the Commonwealth is forecast to receive an additional $670m; and In the five years ending 1991-92, the higher production levels will generate an additional $3.2 billion in excise and royalty collections for the Commonwealth and State governments. (D) AVIATION GASOLINE SURCHARGE (CLAUSE 14 (a)) It is estimated that the surcharge will raise around $3.9m in 1987-88. (E) AUTOMATIC INDEXATION CHANGES (CLAUSE 5) The amendments proposed by this clause have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the Senate and present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Tate) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Williamstown Dockyard Employees Bill should be seen as part of the implementation of a series of decisions involving defence shipbuilding activities which the Minister for Defence announced on 1 April this year. In that statement, he said that `the Government has decided to offer for sale to commercial organisations a controlling interest in (Williamstown) Dockyard'. The rationale for this decision was that, notwithstanding substantial improvement, the Dockyard's performance has continued to fall short of its own commitments and even further behind what might be expected from comparable yards. Operating under public sector constraints, Williamstown Dockyard is not well structured to remedy these deficiencies and to compete for the full prime contractor role for the new surface combatant or Project Anzac. Two consortiums are on the short-list of tenderers to buy the Dockyard. They are: Australian Marine Engineering Corporation, a consortium consisting of Australian Shipbuilding Industries (ASI) of Western Australia, Eglo Engineering of South Australia, ICAL of New South Wales and Thorn-EMI; and Williamstown Dockyard Consortium, a consortium consisting of Tecnav Pty Ltd (a group of employees at Williamstown Dockyard), Byvest Pty Ltd, a management buyout consultancy firm and McConnell-Dowell, a New Zealand based subsidiary of Inter Pacific Ltd. Following the evaluation of their bids, the Government will decide which of them is to become the new owners of Williamstown Dockyard. This will be the most significant sale of Commonwealth assets so far undertaken in Australia. It will be significant because: it will bring about a major restructuring of defence shipbuilding industry; and it will have long term benefits for the defence budget. The new owner of Williamstown Dockyard will take over the task of completing the two FFG-7 class frigates that are being built there. They are planned for delivery in 1991 and 1993. With the four FFGs that were built in the U.S.A., and the guided missile destroyers, they will form the first level of capability that was mentioned in the Defence White Paper which Mr Beazley tabled in March this year as able to contribute to a wide range of operations in both low level and more substantial contingencies. In the same White Paper, the Minister discussed a second level of capability and the proposal for a new class of vessel-a light patrol frigate or as it is now known the Anzac ship-to meet this requirement. This program of 12 ships is a collaborative one between Australia and New Zealand. It is expected that it will give rise to a resurgence in warship building in Australia and like the submarine project provide a continuing work load to Australian industry for many years to come. These two multi-billion projects demonstrate the Government's resolve to support local industry and to bring new technologies to Australia. Expressions of interest have been called for both the design of the Anzac ship and for the role of the prime contractor for the construction of the ships. The Government's strategy is to have the overseas ship designers join Australian consortia in tendering for the construction of these new ships. The Minister hopes to be in a position to announce the name of the new owner of Williamstown Dockyard and the tenderers for the prime contractor role in the near future. The Anzac ship project represents the largest shipbuilding program undertaken in Australia since World War II. It demonstrates this Government's commitment to the defence of Australia and its willingness to make the decisions necessary to implement the commitment. Williamstown Dockyard's work force of some 1,600 are employed under both the Public Service Act and the Naval Defence Act. Neither of these Acts makes provision for mobility between public and private employment. This Bill recognises that there is continuity of employment in this case. It is designed to facilitate the handover of the dockyard to the new owners without the absurdity of making employees eligible for large redundancy payments where there is continuity of employment. This could result in savings to the Commonwealth of between $4m and $13m, dependent on the number of employees involved. There has been an exhaustive program of consultation with the unions and staff associations at Williamstown Dockyard under the aegis of the ACTU. The Bill before the Senate enshrines the agreements reached between the Departments of Defence and Industrial Relations, the Public Service Commission, and the ACTU and dockyard unions. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill, and commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Consideration resumed. GROUP D Department of Community Services and Health Proposed expenditure, $1,251,369,000 Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.24) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I asked: Does the Health Care Corporation operate any health provision services? The answer I received from the Department of Community Services and Health was just `Yes'. I explained that during the Estimates hearings I had asked for further information and that the officers were unable to supply it. I asked the officers of the Department whether during the break, which has been five and a half hours, they could supply me with that information. I was assured that they probably could. Can the Minister now give me that information? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.25) —I am not quite sure what has pre- ceded. Was the honourable senator asking questions about Mr Butters, or has that been satisfactorily answered? Senator Walters —Who is that? Senator TATE —The Commissioner of the Health Insurance Commission. Senator Walters —I have got the answer. Senator TATE —The Health Care Corporation is involved in the following services: it owns five hospitals in New South Wales, totalling approximately 300 beds. The hospitals cover a full range of medical, surgical and obstetric services. In addition, it has a day surgery clinic and an out of hours clinic. Senator Walters —So there is only one hospital with an attached out of hours clinic and a day surgery clinic. Is that right? Senator TATE —The sheet I have in front of me says that it owns five hospitals in New South Wales, totalling approximately 300 beds. Senator Walters —With one clinic? Senator TATE —The hospitals cover a full range of medical surgical and obstetric services. In addition, it has a day surgery clinic and an out of hours clinic. I do not know which hospital that is attached to, or whether they are separate facilities. They have got only one of each of the latter. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.27) —During the Estimates Committee hearings, Senator Peter Baume brought to the attention of the Department 20 or so illnesses that the Department conceded could not successfully be treated by general practitioners and, therefore, would not be able to be successfully treated because of the Government's new stipulation that there should be only three consultations by physicians and then they should be handed on to general practitioners for treatment. We were assured at the Estimates Committee that consultation was going on with the physicians. That was over a month ago. Can the Department bring us up to date on what negotiations have occurred and what stage they are at? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.28) —As I understand it, discussions between the Department and representatives of consultant physicians are continuing to define the minor consultation and to develop guidelines. This work is proceeding urgently. The Minister expects the new arrangements to be put into place within two months subject to satisfactory guidelines being developed quickly. That particular note is dated 11 November. It may be that over the two weeks since it was prepared there have been further developments. I am trying to find out whether it has reached a more concluded stage. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.28) —There was quite considerable discussion about the fact that genital warts are no longer subject to a Medicare rebate. Again we were told that quite considerable consultation was going on in regard to keratoses and all these sorts of things that the Government, in its wisdom, had taken off the schedule of fees, but that it was now consulting to see which ones should be put back on. This is a very urgent matter. Has the Government come up with any decision in that area yet? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.29) —I understand that a meeting was scheduled to be held in the middle of November. I understand the honourable senator has a written answer which indicates that that was to be the case. Senator Walters —Yes, but there has been no result yet. Senator TATE —I do not know the result of the meeting held in mid-November. I am afraid I cannot help the honourable senator any further at the moment. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(5.29) —Can the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) help me identify from the appropriations the sum of money that has been allocated for acquired immune deficiency syndrome programs, particularly AIDS education programs and AIDS prevention programs? I cannot identify them specifically within the appropriations although there are three general headings which possibly relate to them. I am seeking the Minister's guidance. Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.30) —We will try to find out. We have got to go through hundreds of pages in response to a question asked in the chamber. It is much easier to ask these questions at Estimates committees, but we will try to find the appropriate information. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.30) —I asked a further question during Estimates hearings. I was told that consultation was going on and that it was expected to be finalised before the end of the year. It concerned benefits for radiotherapy planning and an increase in benefits for linear accelerator treatments. I was wondering whether the Minister could tell me whether that consultation had occurred, because radiotherapy planning is not on the schedule of fees. Patients are paying, out of their pockets, up to $308 in some States for this treatment which the Government acknowledges is necessary. Has there been an outcome to the negotiations? I believe these are terribly important questions. We cannot have patients paying $308 out of their pockets-and that is the highest level-in several complex treatment areas. If the Government considers that the treatment is legitimate and it is not on the schedule of fees, that matter really should be cleared up very quickly. The Government, in its May mini-Budget, made several alterations to the schedule of fees, one of which concerned physicians being allowed to see a patient for only three consultations before passing that patient on to a general practitioner. It was pointed out to the Department-which agreed, I might add-that this was far from satisfactory. There has been the general banning of treatment for keratoses and genital warts from the schedule of fees. Again, the Department has acknowledged that it has made a blunder, and negotiations are going on. Now there is no schedule for radiotherapy planning. Again, negotiations are going on. They can go on for a long time at great disadvantage to the health of the community. Can the Minister give me more accurate information on how long these three sets of negotiations will be going on, when they are likely to be finalised and what stage they are at? Senator TATE(Tasmania-Minister for Justice)(5.32) —While Senator Ryan is seeking some guidance, for the benefit of Senator McLean, who asked a question about where funding for measures to combat the acquired immune deficiency syndrome is contained in the estimates booklet, I indicate that `A contribution towards measures to combat the transmission of AIDS' appears about halfway down page 95, and there is a similar heading on page 96. I direct the honourable senator to those pages. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(5.33) —At this stage we do not have the information regarding the results of the consultation that Senator Walters was seeking. We will get that information as soon as possible. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.33) —That is one consultation. I have asked about three different areas. Over a month ago the Department assured me that consultations were going on and that it expected the matters to be finalised pretty soon. Patients are being disadvantaged to a considerable extent. There is no schedule of fees for treatment in some very legitimate, and indeed dangerous, areas. Senator Ryan —GPs do it. Senator WALTERS —What on earth does the Minister mean by saying that GPs do it? Is she talking about genital warts or keratoses? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(5.34) —Both those procedures can be done by general practitioners under normal consultation procedures and attract a benefit accordingly. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.34) —On this issue, and for the Minister's benefit, I will say that a response was given to a series of questions asked by my cousin, Senator Peter Baume, about the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee, which was supposed to have met on 9 and 10 November to deal with this problem. Senator Walters is simply asking: What is the outcome? Senator Ryan —We do not yet have that information. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —All we needed was an undertaking to provide us with that information. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(5.35) —If Senator Michael Baume had been listening he would know that I gave Senator Walters that undertaking. When I have the results of those discussions they will be made available to Senator Walters, as I said previously. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.35) —I think the Minister has misunderstood. Senator Ryan —No, I have not misunderstood. Senator WALTERS —Good. Let us start again. We have been given, in an answer, information that a meeting was to be held in a couple of weeks. The Estimates hearing was on 22 October. We were told that in early November there was to be a meeting. That meeting has been held, I presume. There must have been a decision from that meeting. I am asking: Can the Department give us the decision of that meeting? That is a pretty simple thing to ask. I am not asking for the discussions but for the decision from that meeting. There are two other areas on which the Department has been meeting for some time with radiologists. The Department promised that the discussions would be completed very soon-before Christmas. I have asked about the progress and the Minister has told me that she does not know that either. I then asked about the consultations going on concerning physicians. The Government, in all its wisdom, said that from now on patients, no matter how ill or what their illness, can go to a physician for only three consultations and after that the physician must send the patient to a general practitioner. Senator Ryan —No, not at all. Senator WALTERS —Let us go into that. Senator Ryan —Why not? Senator WALTERS —Yes, why not? Senator Peter Baume, who is also a physician, put some questions to Dr de Souza. Senator Ryan —The consultant physician who continued the treatment would not get the specialist rate. Senator WALTERS —That is exactly right. In the Estimates committee hearing we heard that the Government has decided, in its wisdom, that a specialist physician would be entitled to charge the schedule fee for a physician's consultation on three separate occasions. After that, he is no longer entitled to charge what an independent tribunal believes a specialist physician should be able to charge for a consultation. The community expected that that meant he should pass the patient on to a general practitioner. Senator Peter Baume went through some 20 different illnesses with Dr de Souza. It is acknowledged that there was no way that three consultations would be adequate for a physician to treat an illness. One of the officers said that he wanted to make it perfectly clear that the intention of the Government was not really to change the physician's practice. Senator Peter Baume said: Are you saying to me that it was not intended that they should alter their practice, but what was intended was that they should reduce their income? Senator Peter Baume was assured that that was the fact. I want to know whether the Minister is saying that a physician who is a qualified specialist and is seeing a patient on three different occasions can charge what an independent tribunal believes he should be able to charge, with his degree and speciality, but that after the third consultation he should no longer be able to charge more than a general practitioner and should continue to see the patient at the general practitioner's consultation fee? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(5.40) —The policy is different from what has just been described by Senator Walters. I will repeat, I suppose for the hundredth time or more, what it is. The policy is that the patient sees the consultant physician and on three occasions the consultant physician gets the special fee allocated for consulting physicians. If the consultant physician judges that he or she needs to continue to see the patient on an ongoing management basis he or she may continue to see the patient and will receive the specialist fee, which is different from the consulting physician's fee. There is no question that treatment need stop if the consultant physician believes that it is in the interests of the proper management of the patient's condition. Senator Sheil —That is new. Senator RYAN —It is not new. Really, I am surprised at Senator Sheil because he was at- Senator Sheil —I was at the meeting. Senator RYAN —He was there and he heard this. If the consultant physician judges that it is in the interest of the management of the patient to continue to see the patient on a management basis, he or she can receive the specialist fee. Senator Peter Baume —The fee gets cut. Senator RYAN —The fee is reduced from the consultant physician fee to the specialist fee. There is no question in terms of Government policy of the service being withdrawn. If the consultant physician decides to withdraw his or her service on the basis that the fee is going to be cut, that is a decision that the physician makes; it is not a decision that the Government has made. The Government's policy does not deny any service to the patient. It is also possible for the consultant physician to decide that after three consultations at the consultant physician rate the management of the patient would then appropriately be carried out by the general practitioner. That would happen in a variety of cases. But the decision as to the kind of management required by the patient is made by the consultant physician; it is not a decision that is determined in any way by the Government's decision on payment except in a case where a consultant physician might decide to withdraw the services which he or she would otherwise provide on the basis that he or she does not want to accept the specialist fee instead of the consulting physician fee. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.42) —This is getting absolutely ridiculous. The Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) knows perfectly well that there have been attempts to have discussions on the general principles involved with the changes in the August arrangements which saw $250m, as I recall it, taken out of Medicare, meaning that either doctors have to cut their fees or patients have to pay more themselves. It is a simple, uncomplicated proposition and no volume of waffle by the Minister will change that. The Government decided to take $250m out of funding health and that is the way it did it: by reducing the fee that a consultant physician gets. That was done without consultation. Senator Messner —That was in the May statement. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That was in the May economic statement, exactly right. As a result of the Government doing that the patients, and patients organisations in particular, particularly for those people who are chronically ill-- Senator Ryan —Doctors. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Patients organisations, madam. Senator Ryan —Doctors. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —There were some doctors organisations as well which did it, but for the Minister to pretend that patients organisations did not organise is to mislead this chamber. I have pages and pages of advertisements put in newspapers by patients organisations. Maybe I will have to present them to the Minister. I will table them on the next appropriate occasion to prove to the Minister that she cannot mislead this chamber and the people of Australia in the way in which she insists on doing. It is disgraceful that she is seeking to do so. Patients organisations expressed their grave concern about this. As a result of their expressions of concern, this Government made its usual nonsensical offer of talking about it. It was not going to do anything about it; it would talk about it. Those consultations, as I understand it, were the sorts of discussions that Senator Walters and others have referred to, asking what the Government will do about all these things. On top of that, there were some specific requests to a different body altogether-a body called the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee-about under which specific items various activities should be listed. Some of these, which were to be dealt with on 9 and 10 October, related to cases before 1 August. They are dealt with in the answers provided to the Estimates Committee D. In regard to the removal of genital warts in males, the answer says: In respect to the latter, this mechanism only applies to cases submitted up to 1 August 1987 when new arrangements came into effect. So the point of establishing whether there were specific discussions with another organisation-the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee-should not be allowed by this Minister or anyone else to blur the fact that there has been a removal of funding from Medicare, that there has been widespread concern among people, particularly the chronically ill. This will result in either a reduction in the fees of the doctors involved from what they have been getting in the past or an increase in the fees paid by the chronically ill. Senator Messner —Either way, they lose. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Either way, somebody loses; only the Government benefits. Obviously, it is using the medical arrangements as a way of reducing the outflow of money. Everyone should understand that. It is clear and uncomplicated and should not be befuddled by the absolute rubbish we have heard today from the Minister, who is trying to confuse meetings on specific matters on 9 and 10 November with the general question of whether there is genuine consultation with the medical profession about whether or not all those changes that took place on 1 August should proceed. I wish to raise another matter, and that relates to the Australia Card. In the Health Insurance Commission annual report this statement is made: In December 1985 legislation was passed conferring an Australia Card planning function on the Commission. Included in this legislation was a ``sunset'' clause whereby the function was to cease on 31 December 1986 if the substantive legislation for the Australia Card program had not been passed. Responsibility for planning for the proposed national identification system was given to the Australia Card Division. That is, of the Health Insurance Commission. The report continues: A comprehensive establishment and implementation plan was prepared and the final report included detailed strategies for the verification of identity and for the production and issue of the Australia Cards. The Australia Card Bill and associated privacy legislation were introduced in Parliament in September 1986 and, after substantial debate in both Houses, were defeated on 10 December. Accordingly, all work on planning for the Australia Card program ceased in December 1986. The annual report also said that there was no funding for the Australia Card in the Health Insurance Commission from that time. That seems to be in conflict with the allocation of, as I understand it, $485,000 in the figures presented to the Senate Estimates Committee. I am not quite certain where this goes because it was explained in the Estimates Committee that this allocation `will in part be required to cover salaries and administration for the staff of the Australia Card secretariat during the winding down of that secretariat until its eventual absorption back into the Department'. It seems to me clear that there will be a continuing expense-and there has been a continuing expense-past 31 December 1986. I wonder what that continuing expense for the Health Insurance Commission was. I wonder whether in the winding down period there was any expenditure whatsoever directed towards any public relations or promotional activity relating to an Australia Card from 31 December when, it was stated in the Bill, the sunset clause was to take effect. It seems to me that $485,000-if that is the amount that was spent or is still being spent-which relates to the current financial year, was presumably matched by a larger amount from December 1986 onwards under the Health Insurance Commission. I would like to know what money was spent on the Australia Card and on that secretariat between September 1986 and 30 June 1987. I would like a categorical assurance from the Minister that no expenditure took place on proceeding towards the introduction of a card and that all of the expenditure was directed towards winding down the existing operations. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(5.50) —In brief, there is a distinction between expenditures under the Health Insurance Commission, which ceased by the time the sunset clause applied, and expenditures within the Department. Senator Michael Baume seems to be confusing those two expenditures. There was expenditure within the Department. Clearly, after the Government won the election, which was called by way of a double dissolution triggered by the Senate's rejection of the Australia Card legislation, it was the Government's intention-and, indeed, as I have often argued, the Government's responsibility-to proceed with planning for the Australia Card. So there was work done in the Department; it was not done by the Health Insurance Commission. The details of it will be provided to the honourable senator when they are available. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.51) —Am I to understand that that is details of expenditure between 31 December and 30 June 1987, which was a period during which the Health Insurance Commission was allegedly prohibited from expending money, but during which time the Government may well have continued with expenditure? I would be grateful if that is the amount that is to be revealed to us. I would now like to comment a little further on the doctor bashing that I believe has gone on under this Government. I refer to the attempts by Mr Gear and his national prices network committee. Mr Gear is a Labor member of the House of Representatives. He suggested that the average income of doctors was about $187,000, which is, of course, not only mischievous, but also aimed at denigrating the medical profession and diverting attention from one simple reality. That simply reality is that people are having to pay more for their medical treatment because of this Government's actions in the May mini-Budget which reduced the level of rebate. So this Gear operation, this misleading statement of $187,000 being the income of a doctor, is diverting public attention from the reality that medicine is costing people more in Australia because this Government has increased the cost of medical care in Australia. This is a shabby and disgraceful stunt by this Government to divert attention from that reality. We have a clear and simple proposition. The Federal Department of Community Services and Health recently saw fit, in August, to reduce medical rebates by 10 per cent in some areas while increasing the premiums paid by taxpayers in the Medicare insurance scheme by 25 per cent. It cut the benefit by 10 per cent, it increased the Medicare levy by 25 per cent and, not content with that, it reduced the rebate on a whole range of medical treatments, with a total extra cost of about $250m a year to the patient. Having done that, it tries to whip up hatred in the community against the doctors so that they will take the blame. Senator Messner —A real Goebbels technique. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Exactly. As Senator Messner says, it is a blatant Goebbels technique. It finds a victim; in this case the propaganda victims are the doctors, so that they will incur the quite proper anger of many patients as they have to dip deeper into their pockets to pay their health bills, even though their Medicare levy has gone up by 25 per cent in the latest year. It is a shabby and disgraceful performance by this Government. I have received a letter from the Australian Association of Surgeons which I believe is worth referring to. It makes these points about the Gear committee: They imply that fees charged by doctors should correspond to the Medicare Schedule of Benefits. This has never been agreed to and these spokesmen are irresponsible to make such assertions. The chief spokesman for the Federal Government on the issue, has foreshadowed legislation to force doctors to abide by Government determined fees controls. I do not know whether that is accurate. I ask the Minister: Is it the Government's intention to force doctors to abide by Government determined fees? In other words, will the Government have the power-- Senator Ryan —How is this related to the estimates? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —This relates very much to the estimates. Will the Government have the power to determine what doctors can charge so that, in other words, every product will be at the same price? There will be a lowest common denominator element, which, of course, may well suit many of the socialist views on the other side of the chamber. The letter of the State Chairman of the Australian Association of Surgeons continues: We suspect this latest exacerbation of doctor denigration by the Federal Government's minions, is an attempt to divert public awareness away from the inadequate level of rebates available to patients from their Medicare insurance. Since Medicare is a Government monopoly patients cannot shop around for more attractive and reasonable medical insurance packages and have no option but to accept these Medicare rebates which have been reduced by ten per cent in the August mini-budget. It is the inadequate Medicare rebate that this Committee should be addressing not doctors' charges. It is particularly regrettable that the Federal Government has seen fit to promote this new phase of confrontation with the medical profession when negotiations at a State level- that, is, in New South Wales- were beginning to achieve agreements that could have resolved a number of the continuing problems besetting New South Wales' public hospitals. Threats by Federal authorities to destabilise the economic foundations of medical practice have destroyed months of tedious and complex negotiations and can only aggravate the difficult and unsatisfactory situation in New South Wales' public hospitals. That, to my mind, seems to be a reasonable summation of the consequence of this Government's cheap public relations stunt to divert from itself the blame on the question of the increasing cost of medical care-and, of course, the increasing cost of Medicare-and to place it on the doctors. We have plenty of evidence that in most instances doctors are earning probably less, in real terms, than they have in the past. I refer the Committee to a survey done in Western Australia by the Western Australian Faculty of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, which showed that many neighbourhood doctors are in a poor financial state. The survey found that up to 22 per cent of general practitioners earned a net annual income of less than $36,000 last year, and often had to work more than 50 hours a week to do so, after they met the costs of running their small business-the cost of having an assistant, a receptionist, and of having to provide facilities for patients in their waiting rooms, and so on. According to a newspaper article, the faculty chairman in Western Australia, Dr Geoff Emery, said: . . . rising overheads, recent changes to Medicare rebates and an increasing proportion of disadvantaged patients contributed to financial problems. Doctors needed to set a financially-viable fee. Most GPs gave pensioners and disadvantaged patients a 15 per cent discount on the Government-recommended fee. This group formed up to 50 per cent of patients in some practices. In the past, doctors have provided many totally free services. That situation, of course, has been changed by Medicare. There is no doubt that once one has government intervention in this area one gets a mess. We now have the medi-mess-the Medicare mess created by this Government. General practitioners' very survival is being put at threat in many areas. Quite recently, an article in the Bulletin demonstrated the difficult position of general practitioners both in the city and in the country areas of New South Wales. Not only is their survival, and therefore, of course, the quality of medicine available to patients throughout Australia under threat, but also we have this dreadful situation now whereby a bigger and bigger proportion of the cost of medical treatment is to be borne by the patient, including patients who are chronically ill and who in fact have to bear an even greater proportion of the increase than those who are not chronically ill. This has happened specifically as a result of this Government's continued interference with Medicare; its continued reduction of the volume of services provided for the same cost; its reduction in the rebates; and now, of course, its attempt to divert, in a disgusting public relations campaign, public disenchantment, disappointment and anger at the Government's actions on to the general practitioners and specialists who provide such a good service to Australians. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.01) —When the estimates for the Department of Community Services and Health were before the Committee earlier today, I asked the Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health (Senator Ryan) some very serious questions relating to a grant of over a quarter of a million dollars to Professor Singer, Dr Kuhse and Ms Gaze to develop a paper or whatever-some written work- on bioethical issues in the use of human foetal tissues, embryos and gametes. I was able to detail to the Committee the background of the extreme utilitarian views held by the researchers, Dr Singer and Dr Kuhse. I asked the question of the Minister as to the appropriateness of the grant, particularly in view of the fact that money cannot be made available to many scientists whose applications to the National Health and Medical Research Council for research grants have been approved. Yet, the National Health and Medical Research Council can recommend a grant of $274,000 over three years to this group, the chief investigator of which is on record both before a Senate committee and in published works as saying that the embryo, the foetus and, indeed, the newborn infant, has no inherent right to life. I know that the Minister was cut off because of the suspension of the sitting for lunch. I do not quite know where we were at; I do not know whether she was going to get Dr Blewett to get a response to me on that question. I also raised the issue about the National Health and Medical Research Council's working party on the establishment of genetic registers and also a number of other questions relating to the bioethics unit. I would now like to come to another question which I raised in the Estimates Committee which relates to work being done by Dr Warren Jones in Adelaide on the anti-HCG vaccine. I would like to indicate that it has now been clarification by the Department of Community Services and Health as to what is meant by that vaccine. Professor Warren Jones was calling that vaccine a contraceptive. Clearly, from the added material that has been received by Estimates Committee D, the vaccine is not a contraceptive. It is an abortifacient. It works as do other vaccines which are designed to develop a biological situation which attacks diseases. It is a very interesting comment on where our society is going if we are developing a vaccine against early human life once formed. We are talking about the attack which is made by the vaccine on the human chorionic gonadotrophin which is developed by the cells surrounding the early human embryo as it is proceeding down the oviduct. According to information now available to us, the purpose of Dr Jones's research is to try to devise this anti-HCG vaccine to attack directly the human embryo before implantation, to make implantation impossible or-and I use the words used by the Department-slough the human embryo after implantation has commenced, thus acting as an abortifacient. I believe that it is important to register now what the Department has said because up until now the application made by Professor Warren Jones was placed in the category of a contraceptive. When any application for further trials of this drug is made to the Government, the Government should realise what it is. It should have regard to that fact when considering the question of approval or otherwise. I also raised the question of the abortifacient drug, RU-486. In the information which has now been produced to the Estimates Committee as a result of questions that were placed on notice, the Department has revealed that it has given approval for a preliminary trial in Australia of the new abortifacient drug, RU-486 and was considering another proposed trial-initiated by the World Health Organisation-for the use of RU-486 in conjunction with another drug in early abortions. According to the information which is now supplied to the Senate by the Department, the request for approval for the first trial came from Roussel Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd. In the document that was supplied by the Department, it is claimed that `at this stage trials have not commenced and no import approval has been given'. I wonder whether the Minister could obtain from the Minister for Community Services and Health precisely what that means? Perhaps the Minister cannot do it now, but perhaps she will take that question on notice and get some clarification as to whether the Government is expecting to receive an application in respect of this drug and what the attitude of the Government will be when it receives such an application. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(6.10) —It will be apparent from earlier speeches made by me in this chamber that the Australian Democrats are concerned that the Australian public is being exposed to a considerable health hazard in the form of herbicides, pesticides and weedicides. I seek the Minister's assurances that there are in the appropriations adequate funds to address research in the areas and to pursue the recommendations contained in Mr Hogg's report, to which I will refer in detail later on in the appropriations. It is apparent that there is in the community great concern as a result of the discrediting of the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. I think that it is generally accepted that that Royal Commission is now discredited. The major finding of that Royal Commission was that agent orange, which was a codename for toxic chemicals, was innocent. I believe that there has been a halo effect from that finding to the extent that a certain portion of the community-not the whole community-has become complacent about the use of herbicides, pesticides and weedicides. There is clear evidence in today's Sydney Morning Herald that at least one vigilant group in northern New South Wales is greatly concerned about the use of pesticide chemical 2,4-D in the community. Indeed, members of that group were prepared to go to the point of being arrested in protesting against its use in their community. The point I make is that the Evatt Royal Commission has been discredited. It found agent orange innocent. I believe that that finding is now discredited. That observation is substantiated by six pieces of research, subsequent to the findings of the Evatt Royal Commission, which in fact have found against agent orange. I suggest that, unless we are prepared to again take up the investigation of the consequences of the widespread use in the community of herbicides and weedicides containing 2,4-D, we are walking down a very hazardous path. I seek the Minister's assurance that there is sufficient opportunity within the appropriations for the Government to act on some fairly potent recommendations in the Hogg report, which, I am assured, will be considered by Cabinet in the very near future and which recommends fairly prompt action in relation to what will, I believe, subsequently prove to be widespread abuse of the use of such chemicals. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(6.13) —The guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) allow for research in these areas and a sub-committee of the NHMRC looks specifically at the kinds of issues raised by the honourable senator. In general terms, I think it is apparent that the NHMRC can do the kind of work which the honourable senator requested and it will be done if appropriate applications come forward. Senator Harradine's request for further information has been taken on notice. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.14) —There was some exchange in Senate Estimates Committee D between my cousin Senator Peter Baume and officers of the Department about the role the Department played in the run-up to the election in issuing information which may be held by some people to have had a possible political content. As I understand it, that matter was more or less resolved at the time. Senator Peter Baume asked: Were any departmental resources used in the production of any letter sent to any community organisations which criticised the Opposition tax and expenditure cutting policies? Mr Lindenmayer replied: To my knowledge, certainly not. The words `to my knowledge' place a reservation on the answer and I ask the Minister whether she can provide us with an assurance not only that it was a question of Mr Lindenmayer's knowledge but that there was no contribution of departmental resources to any political activity aimed at denigrating or diminishing, in any way in the eyes of the electorate, any Opposition policies. I ask the Minister to provide an unqualified undertaking particularly because of the tabling in this chamber earlier of a blue covered document which was claimed to be a critique of the Opposition's health policy at that time. Of course, it was not a critique of the Opposition's health policy because what was held in that document to be the Opposition's health policy was not the Opposition's health policy in any way. The document claimed that the policy would cost the average Australian about $26 a week extra, which was totally false. However, there was a great deal of material in that document which, clearly, would have come only from departmental sources. It was not readily publicly available information. It is because of that that I ask the Minister whether any of the Department's resources were made available. Who prepared that document? Why did it have no source on it? Obviously, it did not need to have an authorisation on it because, as I recall, at that stage the writs may not have been issued for the election. I do not ask this in terms of whether any electoral law was broken; I am simply asking, in this series of questions, whether the Department was required to participate in its production in any way whatsoever, including the provision of information which was not readily available to members of the public or, of course, members of the Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline-she may not have the capacity to do so now-what role, if any, the Department played. Also I ask her to firm up the undertaking given by the departmental officer at the Senate Estimates Committee when he said that, to his knowledge, there had not been such participation in terms of other matters. I would like to have the condition on that undertaking removed. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(6.18) —I have no knowledge of any information that would conflict with what the officer said with regard to the Department's resources being used in the political campaign. In regard to a document tabled as a critique of the Opposition's health policy, it certainly may be the case that costings for particular proposals were provided by the Department. It is common practice for costings of proposals to be prepared, as indeed information is prepared for the Opposition, on request. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.19) —In that case, would the Government prepare for us a table of the expense of any such work requested by the Government in the area of health so that we can see what the contribution required of the Department was in the preparation of material of a political nature? I also ask, as I have now asked twice, for a firming up of the undertaking given by the departmental officer to my cousin, who asked: Were any departmental resources used in the production of any letter sent to any community organisations which criticised the Opposition's tax and expenditure cutting policies? As I said, he replied, `To my knowledge, certainly not'. Will the Minister give an unequivocal assurance that there were none? Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(6.20) —To my knowledge there were none. I will take on notice Senator Baume's request regarding possible costings on particular proposals provided to the Government. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(6.20) —In the misinterpretations, or misunderstandings, we had earlier about whether we were talking about changing the principles involved in the 1 August $250m cut in funding for procedures under Medicare, the question of specific matters referred to the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee (MBAC) was raised. As I understand it, the Minister's undertaking to get information related to the general discussions with medical groups on what the future would be of the 1 August changes-whether any softening would take place, whether there would be any giving way to any of the special requests. Was it that request the Minister was responding to? If so, would any such changes be revenue neutral? Or was she responding to what she understood to be a request for the outcomes of the MBAC's meetings on 9 and 10 November where the specific question of genital warts and the appropriate item under which they would be paid for was to be dealt with. As I said, this is of a historic nature as far as males are concerned because it does not apply as of 1 August. Which of these two requests was the Minister responding to? Senator Ryan —Both. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I thank the Minister. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.22) —Previously I was referring to the negotiations going on between the physicians and the Government. During the Estimates Committee D hearing on 22 October, Mr Bansemer of the Department of Community Services and Health said: We are looking to making the decision very quickly. A specific time period has not been agreed. We have an expectation that the in principle agreements will be concluded within the next fortnight . . . It was stated that it might be possible for the changes to the schedule to come into effect on 1 December. It is quite reasonable to ask the Department to tell us at this late stage-there are now only six days to go before the new schedule takes effect-how those negotiations are getting on. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(6.23) —I have already undertaken to get advice for Senator Walters on the outcome of those discussions as soon as possible, probably tomorrow. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.24) —I thank the Minister. The Minister stated earlier that a specialist does not have to send a patient to a general practitioner but is entitled to continue seeing the patient at the specialist rate. The specialist rate is very similar to the rate of a general practitioner. When I said that a specialist would be expected to charge the same rate as a general practitioner the Minister assured me that that was not the case. I gather that item No. 110 covers the first consultation, item No. 116 covers the second and third consultations and item No. 118 is the new item the Government will bring down from 1 August which it has called a specialist consultation. The specialist rate is very similar to the global fee. Senator Ryan —It is higher. Senator WALTERS —The Minister might be able to tell me exactly what the difference is. The global fee has also been altered under the new arrangements applying from 1 October for the general practitioner's fee. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Special Minister of State and Minister Assisting the Minister for Community Services and Health)(6.26) —The specialist rate is higher than the general practitioner rate but not as high as the consultant physician's rate. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.26) —Could the Minister tell me what those figures are? Senator Ryan —No, not now. Senator WALTERS —It is all very well for the Minister to say that the specialist rate is higher than the general practitioner's rate but can she tell me how much higher it is? Is it $1 or $2 higher? If she cannot tell me how much higher it is, it is most unsatisfactory. I suggest that we will have to pursue this matter perhaps on the next day of sitting. I will not be put off by the Minister saying to me that there is a specialist rate. The implication of that is that the rate is well above the general practitioner's rate, in line with the qualifications of the specialist. I do not believe that to be the case. The general practitioner's figure, as a global figure, is very similar to the figure which the Government expects the specialist to charge. Surely the departmental officers sitting beside the Minister now can give me the figure. It is a reasonable request. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.27) —I rise in response to the Minister's reply to a question asked by Senator McLean a few moments ago in which she referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) being a responsible body in relation to testing and advising on pesticides. Is the Minister aware that the registration and regulation of pesticides is a State matter? Senator Ryan —Yes, I am perfectly well aware of that. The answer was in respect of the possibility of research funding being devoted to such projects. Senator COULTER —I thank the Minister. I am glad that she has said that. Senator Ryan —I have said it before, too, if you had listened. Senator COULTER —I did listen. It is the very point I am now taking up. Is the Minister aware that in relation to advising-that is the only function of the NHMRC-not only on pesticides but also on industrial chemicals and drugs, the NHMRC is entirely dependent upon information provided by other sources? The NHMRC does not carry out, nor does it have the funds to carry out, its own independent research. Moreover, there is abundant evidence that when companies seek to register, in this case pesticides, they are able to and do indeed filter the information provided to the NHMRC and on which it gives advice. There are many instances in the past where substances have been registered, both here and overseas, on evidence which has been found to be faulty. There is no facility in Australia, for instance, for carrying out animal tests on the carcinogenicity of either pesticides or drugs. We have no government laboratory which can carry out mutogenicity tests, which would be the back-up to animal tests for carcinogenicity of agents. Has the Minister given consideration to increasing substantially the allocation of funds to the NHMRC or some similar body so that this type of necessarily independent work can be properly carried out, as Australia is now very poorly served? Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.29) —I suggest that further consideration of this item be deferred and that we proceed on to the next appropriation-for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs-and return to this one when the answers that Senator Walters has requested are available. I move: That further consideration of votes for the Department of Community Services and Health be postponed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $196,653,000 Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.30) —I refer to the 1987-88 allocation for the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI). This year's allocation has been increased by $50,000, to $305,000, as stated in the Press release of the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) on 15 September. As the Minister said, NAATI is an independent organisation whose costs are shared by the Commonwealth and State governments. This money, as stated, is only a contribution to the Authority and it in no way pays for all the activities that the Authority has to undertake. When translators and interpreters undergo their testing programs they pay anything from $45 for a level 2 admission test to $300 for a level 4 translation test. The Authority also depends to a great extent on funding from the States. I would like to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that this is something of a problem for the Authority because, whereas some States pay immediately, others do not and the money that it receives from candidates for the testing program has to be used to set up the program. Despite the difficulties, NAATI is doing very well. It is ahead of its own program and it is accrediting more translators and interpreters and further developing professional standards for translating and interpreting. It has already achieved its third principle-to foster the establishment of a national professional body of translaters and interpreters. A conference was held in September this year, which was fully funded by NAATI, and Australia now has, for the first time, a national association of translators and interpreters, which will probably go under the name of Ausit. I ask the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds): now that there are more, and will be more, fully accredited translators and interpreters available, is funding set aside in the appropriations so that these people can practice properly in interpreting and translating services? We already have the telephone interpreter service, and some States have taken up the option, as set out in the report of the Galbally Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, to set up State translator and interpreter services. However, this has not been done in Western Australia to date. I ask the Minister whether the money is still set aside, as set out in the Galbally report, on the basis of 50 per cent funding by the Federal Government and 50 per cent funding by the State governments. I know that the national language policy makes reference to interpreter and translator services but, to my knowledge, no mention has been made so far as to how the money set aside for the implementation of that policy can be used by the States to set up their own interpreter and translator services. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(6.35) —Senator Jenkins points out the very important role of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI), and we acknowledge the very important work that it does. The setting up of the professional body in the next year will further enhance the role and reputation of that organisation. I was just trying to clarify the situation in regard to Western Australia, and I may have to take that question on notice if Senator Jenkins is not satisfied with my answer. The funding procedures for the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters were established in 1977 to accredit translators and interpreters through assessment and testing, and to develop standards for the profession. It was initially fully funded by the Commonwealth, but in 1981 an agreement with the States led to cost sharing on a 50:50 basis. I think that what Senator Jenkins was alluding to-and I would be pleased if she would clarify this-is that while some States have taken up that offer on a 50:50 basis, other States have not so done. Senator Jenkins —Every State has a branch of NAATI on a State basis, but the logical follow through is not being taken up by all States, including Western Australia. That is, now that we have professional interpreters and translators, we do not have a State-based interpreter and translator service, which is much needed. Senator REYNOLDS —That is what I thought Senator Jenkins was referring to. Certainly, the situation is identical in Queensland. I have had a number of complaints over the years that the Queensland Government has not supported interpreting and translating services on the same basis as, for example, New South Wales and Victoria. I shall take that aspect of Senator Jenkins's question on notice and see what the current state of play is in regard to negotiations with Western Australia and other States that are not taking full advantage of the potential to develop State services. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.37) —I asked one specific question in that regard which I again ask because I do not know the answer. The report of the Galbally Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants came out in the late 1970s. It raised the possibility of 50 per cent funding by the States and 50 per cent by the Federal Government when the States set up an interpreter and translator service. Is that money still available, as we are now about 10 years down the track? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(6.38) —I am sorry; I will have to take that question on notice. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.38) —Can the Minister tell me what screening process is undertaken for entry into Australia of refugees from Chile? Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(6.38) —I do not think that the officer has that information here. I am sorry, but we will have to take that question on notice. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.39) —There are a number of questions which I would like to ask and they are all related to the economic benefits of the migration program. Here we are looking at a program for which the appropriations are of the order of $200m. Later we will be considering the appropriations for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, which are of the order of just over $300m. I cannot help but draw attention to the fact that we are spending only 50 per cent more on the indigenous people of Australia than we are spending on our migrant people. I am reminded that, only a couple of weeks ago, I was in Port Augusta at a conference of Aboriginal people. We were considering the process by which migrants can come to this country with $500,000 with virtually no questions asked, whereas the Aborigines are, in many respects, having a hard time. One of the Aborigines present at the conference said, `If we were outside this country, we would never be admitted as migrants'. That comment seemed to me to suggest that we should be looking very closely at the migration program. While it may not be a racist program, it is certainly culturist in that we are prepared to accept into this country those who have developed the same exploitative tendencies as the white people in Australia but we cannot do the right thing by the indigenous people, who have a different culture and an attitude of caring for the land in which they have lived for 40,000 years or more. Yesterday, in furtherance to an answer to a question the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) said: I have the departmental answer to the honourable senator's question. It reads as follows: The greater proportion of the Government's migration program is directed towards economic benefits and is designed to select skilled migrants to fill labour market needs immediately; business migrants to contribute to economic development; and independent and concessional migrants who are immediately employable, young, skilled and educated. Selection criteria are designed to ensure immediate economic contribution and to minimise social welfare costs. The assessing of employability has regard to the likely language requirements of the specific occupation or employer. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether one should use people simply as economic ciphers to be shuffled around from country to country wherever one can make a profit out of them, it seems to me that if one accepts this assertion which has often been made that the migration program is of economic benefit to this country then it behoves those who make that assertion to establish that there are indeed economic benefits. I do not believe that this has been done. I point to several observations in relation to the migration program. Family reunion is a substantial part of that program at present. Very often in these family reunion programs we are bringing in large numbers of unskilled people who, in fact, contribute overly to the unemployment rate in Australia compared with indigenous Australians. I point also to the fact that in addition to the amount we are considering in relation to the appropriations for this Department some $137m per year is at the moment being repatriated out of Australia to other countries in the form of pensions to former migrants. I believe that there is no linkage at all between the stated economic objectives of this Government, namely to increase exports, and the migration program. It is well known that primary industry is becoming more and more capital intensive and less labour intensive and, indeed, fewer and fewer people are working on farms producing primary products. I believe that approximately two-thirds of Australia's primary production is exported. To the extent that we increase our population, the proportion of primary produce that we export falls. Our other major export industry of recent years-minerals-is also a very capital intensive industry and one in which we do not need large numbers of people to produce exports. I am not sure whether the importing of people is aiding the declared economic requirements of this country. Another point I would like to make bears on a question I asked Senator Walsh yesterday in relation to gross national product. The gross national product counts many costs as benefits. This was a point which Senator Walsh conceded. Most of the migrants who come to Australia settle in urban areas. As these are very large areas already, these people tend to settle on the periphery. The population geographically expands outwards. We build more roads and more houses, we provide more telephones, we use more electricity, more water, more gas, et cetera. Those are costs which are borne by ordinary Australians. For instance, those people living further away from Adelaide must travel further to work. The costs for those Australians increase. The cost of electricity goes up. The cost of providing the water supply goes up. Those costs appear in the national accounts as additions. So by that measure of gross national product it is certainly true that we are becoming better off. But, that measure itself is misleading, as Senator Walsh conceded yesterday. Those costs should be put in a costs column and not in a benefits column. I think it is the perception of the majority of people in Australia, particularly in the cities, that they are becoming worse off. That decrease in the quality of life is largely to do with population size. That population size is being augmented by a migration program which is being supported by the Government. We hear a lot about the need to deepen the capital investment in this country rather than to widen the capital investment. To the extent that the migration program causes more building, particularly home building, it is simply a capital widening; it is not a capital deepening. The provision of more houses for migrants does not help the housing situation for those people already in this country. For a variety of reasons I think it seems to be clear that a good case can be made for the claim that the migration program is, in fact, detrimental to the economic well-being of Australia. I therefore call on the Minister to provide the evidence which lies behind the assertion which she made yesterday and which has often been made by people both in government and in opposition-that the migration program is indeed of economic benefit to Australia. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(6.47) —I would recommend to Senator Coulter and to other honourable senators in this place at the moment the report entitled Understanding Immigration which was produced by the secretariat to the Committee to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies. That report takes up the debate, as was outlined by Senator Coulter, about positive and negative impacts of immigration on the economy. I do not intend to go into it in any great detail. I acknowledge that on page 18 of the report negative impacts are detailed. However, just as many positive effects are detailed. Probably what it would be most useful for me to do would be to quote from the report that section relating to the major research project which was conducted jointly by the Committee of Economic Development of Australia and the then Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Overall it was concluded that immigration had not been to the detriment of the economy but had conferred many economic benefits. Among the specific findings of the study published in 1985 were the following: immigration does not increase total unemployment; immigration on average actually improves the chances of unemployed resident workers gaining employment, mainly because it increases the demand for goods and services, thus helping to create more jobs. Expenditure by recently arrived immigrants, partly financed by funds they bring with them, can substantially increase the level of consumer demand, particularly in areas such as housing; Immigrants tend to be younger than the resident population, helping to reduce the median age of the population; Of course, this is very important in view of the aging of the Australian population with its associated costs in the provision of services and pensions for our senior citizens. The report continued: higher immigration may decrease per capital Government expenditure on health and welfare, but slightly increase education expenditure; immigration may lead to increased imports but also capital inflow. The effect on exports is unclear; immigration introduces new labour skills and experience which can encourage innovation and help create a more flexible workforce. Some critics of the CEDA findings suggested that they emphasised the benefits and gave insufficient attention to the costs of immigration- I think that is the point Senator Coulter is raising- They considered the economic scenarios employed by the CEDA researchers to be inappropriate or unduly optimistic. According to this viewpoint, a large increase in the immigration program would require substantial investments in capital infrastructure and support services, thus stretching government budgets. Critics also claimed there would be added pressure on financial markets and on the balance of payments because of the need to seek funds overseas. It is important that the debate continue about the positive and negative impacts. One aspect of the Canberra-based Fitzgerald Commission to Advise on Australia's Immigration Policies is to look at this matter in the overall context of Australia's immigration policies. I do have some other facts for Senator Coulter relating to estimates of funds transferred by migrants visaed in 1986-87. This is provided from the population and research branch of the Department and is based on data from the migration program management system covering all principal applicants visaed in 1986-87. The amount of funds stated at interview to be available for transfer to Australia has been accumulated by policy category and by post and are presented in the attached tables which I will seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. I will just summarise. Not all visaed principal applicants will ultimately come to Australia, though recent experience suggests that at least 95 per cent will, and those who do may bring more or less money than indicated at their interview, for a variety of reasons. There is also an artificial upper limit of $9.9m for the funds item and this is likely to affect the figures for the business migration category in particular. However, the data do provide a guide as to the absolute magnitude of migrants' funds in relation to other balance of payments aggregates and to the relativities between categories and posts. The aggregate amount available for transfer by migrants visaed in 1986-87 was $2,110m, a substantial amount relative to other balance of payments figures. For example, the amount spent by tourists in Australia in 1986-87 was $2,528m. However, once tourist funds leaving the country are taken into account, the net figure in 1986-87 was a debit of $429m. Therefore, net migrant transfers, on the other hand, were an estimated credit of $l1,351m. The average amount a principal applicant visaed during 1986-87 had to transfer to Australia was $41,300. I emphasise that that was taking all categories of migrants. There was considerable variation between policy categories though, with business migration and special eligibility categories being well above average and, of course, family migration and refugees being obviously well below average. I seek leave to incorporate the tables in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 POTENTIAL FUNDS TRANSFER TO AUSTRALIA BY MIGRANTS VISAED IN 1986-87, BY POLICY CATEGORY Policy category Mean funds ($A'000) Agg funds ($Am) Per cent of total FAMILY MIGRATION Sub-category A ... 13.5 197.5 9.4 Sub-category B ... 51.8 359.3 17.0 CONCESSIONAL MIGRATION Non-dependent child ... 28.6 28.3 1.3 Brother or sister ... 36.6 415.6 19.7 Nephew or niece ... 30.3 21.6 1.0 INDEPENDENT MIGRATION ... 52.0 105.9 5.0 SKILLED LABOUR AND BUSINESS Skilled labour ... 42.0 172.8 8.2 Employer nominee ... 39.9 155.3 7.4 Business migrant ... 550.3 505.7 24.0 REFUGEE AND SHP ... 0.4 2.1 0.1 SPECIAL ELIGIBILITY ... 163.5 146.5 6.9 Total ... 41.3 2110.6 100.0 Source: MPMS Table 2 POTENTIAL FUNDS TRANSFER TO AUSTRALIA BY MIGRANTS FROM THE ``TOP 10'' POSTS IN 1986-87 Post Total funds ($Am) London ... 416.0 Hong Kong ... 414.4 Kuala Lumpur ... 171.3 Manchester ... 156.4 Singapore ... 131.0 Pretoria ... 93.5 Edinburgh ... 79.8 Bonn ... 50.l7 Jakarta ... 43.3 Los Angeles ... 32.7 Total ... 1589.1 Source: MPMS Senator REYNOLDS —In relation to the business migration program which, I think, is of particular relevance, the business migration target for 1986-87 was 2,500 visas. In actual fact, this target was exceeded during that period with some 3,580 visas being issued. That represents 919 principal applicants. In monetary terms, the program in 1986-87 was responsible for an inflow of capital into Australia of some $500m. The average inflow of capital per principal applicant was around $500,000. For 1987-88, the target of persons to be visaed is 3,500. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(6.55) —I thank the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) for her reply and those figures of which I was aware. I simply point out that that study is being done by conventional economists with conventional accounting methods which is exactly the point that I was making. I point out that many of the costs are counted as benefits, particularly, in relation to housing. It really does not benefit Australians to build more houses if those houses are not being built for Australians. That applies to the so-called increase in consumption which is going on. The second point I make is in relation to the Minister's comments about decreasing the average age of Australians because of the younger age of migrants, on average. I am sure she would be aware that it costs much more to educate people than it does to look after them when they are old. The claim that we need to be concerned because people are getting older and we have an aging population that we need to look after, is, in fact, a furphy. It is far more difficult and expensive to look after a young population than an old population. The increase in the average age from roughly 31 to 37 which, I think, would be the age at equilibrium, would produce a better economic situation for Australia than what we have at the moment. Finally, I simply make the point that it is well known that Australians have, as it were, voted democratically with their reproductive behaviour. They have declared to other Australians and to this Government what they want for Australia. The average fertility per woman is down to about 1.84 children. It seems to me to be a peculiar denial of the democratic process that the Government now seeks to impose on people who have declared their intention through their fertility behaviour, whether they like it or not, an even larger population on the country. Would the Minister care to comment on whether it is democratic to go against the declared wishes-not declared at the ballot box, but declared even more fundamentally through the way parents have behaved in producing children-by imposing a further 120,000 people per year on an unwilling Australian population. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(6.58) —I want to ask a question relating to an item in the Appropriation Bill on accommodation services for refugees and migrants at migrant centres and flats. These alterations have been described by the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) as improvements to migrant accommodation and they have involved the closure and sale of migrant hostels in Perth and Brisbane so that new arrivals can now be housed in self-contained accommodation. It is recognised that the institutionalised living in the migrant hostels was not always satisfactory for migrants even though they were there for only a limited period. Afterwards migrants did move on to self-contained flats if they so wished before being in the situation where they could maintain themselves in their own housing. It is stated that this self-contained accommodation can be provided at a much lower cost. It would be interesting to know, though I do not pose that specific question, at this stage how much lower that cost would be, because it was said by the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) in his Press release that the change in emphasis from old-style hostel living to self-contained accommodation would not mean a reduction in the ancillary services provided for new settlers and that the same range of assistance would be provided; only its location and method of delivery would change. I would like to ask the Minister for Local Government how the same sorts of services to newly-arrived migrants can be provided in this situation. In Perth, for example, when the Graylands hostel is closed down, migrants will be moved to government-owned blocks of flats in Tuart Hill, Osborne Park and Beaconsfield. These are three separate suburbs in Perth. How can services with regard to on-arrival English programs for migrants in hostels, child care services provided in situ in the hostel and information and other services provided by bilingual information officers be given if migrants are to be spread, as in Perth, over three separate suburbs? How can all these services be provided and the costs lowered at the same time? I notice that expenditure in this area in 1986-87 was $8,871,000. The estimate for 1987-88 is $8,371,000. The saving is $400,000, as per the tables. Does that include the costs of these extra services? People who work with migrants in Perth have approached me, saying that they are very worried about these matters. They have posed such questions as this: migrants obviously do not have cars immediately on arrival in Perth, but the bus services in Perth leave a lot to be desired. Are women who require the early arrival English classes and who have to take their children to child centres to be provided with taxis? How will all this be managed? It seems to me to be a very difficult exercise. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(7.03) —I want to respond to a couple of points that Senator Coulter made and also to ask the Minister a couple of questions. In the first place, I would like to make it very clear that the Opposition does not share Senator Coulter's view that immigration is too high. On the contrary, the Opposition is strongly in favour of immigration, and always has been. Senator Coulter —I was asking a question. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Coulter is saying, `I was not really saying that too many migrants are still coming in. All I was asking was whether it was democratic to bring them in'. I have not heard many more ridiculous propositions than that specious nonsense. The emotive suggestion that it may well be undemocratic strikes me as a clear statement of a position which, I must say, is not the Opposition's position. We should make that clear. If it is not the position of the Australian Democrats, I hope that a spokesman from the Democrats will give an unequivocal commitment to support at least the present level of immigration so that we will not have this double-talking nonsense that Senator Coulter is now appearing to undertake. Senator Coulter —It is not nonsense. Why do you support immigration? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I will come to that. As the good old political phrase goes, `I am glad you asked me that question'. First, I will deal with a couple of matters relating in particular to the business migration program. I thank the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) for providing information, in response to Senator Coulter, about the $500m-odd. I am really speaking in response to questions my cousin, Senator Peter Baume, asked in the Senate Estimates Committee because he is not able to be present in the chamber due to parliamentary business elsewhere. He had asked where the half a million dollars was going, for example. In 1984-85, visaed business migrants said that they were bringing $151m; $242m in 1985-86; and $507.4m in 1986-87. According to the response to Senator Peter Baume, indications from the Department are that most business migrants understate the funds they are transferring to Australia. So the figures could well be more than that. My concern, and that of Senator Peter Baume, relates to where the money is going. He was concerned about what industries it was going into. The only information the Department has about investment intentions of people with money coming into Australia under this program relates to the period before April 1985. The Government simply seems to be extrapolating that information forward, which does not seem to me to be an adequate or coherent way of keeping check on what is a very significant program which presumably has been instituted to bring benefits to Australia. We do not know exactly in what way these benefits are coming to us because the Government has not provided an adequate monitoring system. Under the arrangements entered into before April 1985-and it is evident from the list of figures that there was not all that much before April 1985-something like 40 per cent was going into manufacturing industry. In other words, it appears that this program is of great benefit to an area of Australian industry which is in desperate need of investment funds. If these figures are being maintained, that program is clearly of some benefit to our balance of payments because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the continual fall in investment in manufacturing industry under this Government has been disastrous for us in that it has limited our ability to replace imports and certainly has damaged our capacity to increase exports. What concerns me about the accuracy of these figures is that they do not indicate any investment in tourism. I would have thought that tourism would probably be one of the major areas in which investment from business migrants would have taken place, as they would be experts in dealing with people from their country of origin. I ask the Minister to give her attention to seeing to what extent there can be greater monitoring of at least the investment intentions of these people. I find it hard to believe that half of one per cent of the money, according to the survey, brought in by business migrants simply ends up in the finance industry. Clearly that is nonsense. I am not in any way attacking the program. I am simply saying that we need more information about it. Another bit of information I would like concerns the Australian Labor Party's immigration and ethnic affairs policy. In June 1987, during the recent election campaign, the policy stated that the Labor Party was committed to enhancing and strengthening the various advisory bodies presently operating. That was its election commitment. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to tell us what her Party has done or intends to do to put that commitment into effect. In response to Senator Coulter, in the few minutes remaining, I just say that a very sound case is made for the maintenance of immigration to Australia in the recent publication that was tabled yesterday, Australia's population trends and prospects 1987. That document was produced by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. It notes: The success of immigration policies in promoting growth has been substantial. In Australia, post-War immigration is estimated to have contributed, directly and indirectly through births, over 60 per cent of total growth. In the future, as natural increase declines and populations age, immigration is likely to take on an even more significant role. In defence of that proposition I think it is important to recognise, as Senator Coulter has pointed out, that there have been changes in birth patterns. There was a baby boom; now there is a baby recession. Recessions follow booms and vice versa. To make an assumption that people have adopted an immutable position-that is not meant in a sexual sense-on whether the population should increase at a particular rate, as Senator Coulter has done, does not appear to be coherent. In any event, I think if Senator Coulter were to examine the issue properly he would recognise that economic considerations play a very important part in people's decisions on whether they will have a family of two or more offspring. To attempt to suggest that because the reproduction rate is about 1.85 it therefore indicates a determined view that we should not increase the population of Australia is not only bunkum, it is absolutely pathetic bunkum. I am not trying to advise the Minister how to answer Senator Coulter, but Senator Coulter did invite me to make the point. The publication on Australia's population trends and prospects put out by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs deals with this specific issue very well indeed. It points out that not simply in Australia but in the rest of the world one of the most important demographic issues is the rapid growth in the number of elderly. Issues associated with aging already represent major challenges to planners in developed countries. The report goes on to say: The small generations being born now will have to support very large numbers of aged dependants in 30 to 50 years time. So quite apart from all the other benefits and obvious considerations-business investments, providing new investment and so on, providing skilled workers at a time of shortage-there is the specific consideration about the impact on the makeup of our population in age terms. The report continues: Australia's population is projected to age at about the same rate as those of other developed countries . . . By 2025 it is likely to have a median age of 38.4 years (compared with 31.0 years in 1986). This is about the same as the present median age in the Federal Republic of Germany. . . . . In Australia a key aspect of ageing will be the march of the baby boom generations up the age pyramid. By 2025 nearly all these people will be aged 65 years or older. They will make up about 17.6 per cent of the population compared with 10.5 per cent for the 65 years and over age group in 1986. That is a very significant change. Instead of only 10 per cent of the population being 65 or over, by 2025 about 17.6 per cent will be because of that baby boom. The publication continues: Perhaps more significant, given their greater demands on health and welfare programs, will be growth in the number of people aged 75 years and over. We have to recognise that taxpayers are the people who have to provide health and welfare programs for the aged. That is not being critical of the aged; it is simply stating the fact. If we end up with a far greater proportion of our population in the aged category the burden on the rest of the community will be so much higher. The publication goes on to say that over the 1986 to 2025 period the aged dependency ratio in Australia is projected to increase by about three times the decline in another important ratio, the youth dependency ratio. Interestingly, it is far cheaper to support youth than it is to support the elderly. The report goes on: The aged dependency ratio is projected to jump not only because of the movement of the baby boom generations over 65 years, but also because at this time growth in the population of labour force age is projected to grow slowly. Without immigration growth it would be negative. In other words, there would be a fall in the number of people in the work force providing the taxes to provide services to a greater proportion of people who are aged. The report continues: The impact of immigration is to add proportionately large numbers to the labour force age groups, thereby slowing the rate of increase in the aged dependency ratio . . . by bolstering numbers in the labour force, immigration has the potential to alleviate the burden per worker which will be imposed as a result of the baby boom generations moving into aged dependency in the decades after 2012. So it seems that all this rational, coherent stuff from the Department which Senator Coulter obviously does not like-- Senator Coulter —Irrational and incoherent. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It is in fact rational and coherent and I believe it totally demolishes what Senator Coulter said. Another interesting point is the level of urbanisation in Australia. The report states: In Australia the level of urbanisation is not likely to change dramatically from the very high 86 per cent as at the 1981 Census. Of particular importance will be the future growth of Australia's five largest cities. . . . Growth of these cities has been slow recently . . . largely as a result of increased out-migration. The factors underlying this trend include changing employment patterns away from manufacturing, which is concentrated in the big cities, to the service sector, which is more decentralised; growing numbers rejecting high density city living; and a growing retirement population seeking more favourable environments in which to settle . . . Counteracting the effects of internal migration will be immigration, which tends to add proportionately large numbers to the major cities. This therefore maintains the use of the infrastructures already built up. So in economic terms immigration overall is providing a very useful service which the Opposition strongly supports. It favours at least present rates of immigration and certainly would reject any suggestion that there should be any diminution, particularly on the basis Senator Coulter seemed to be suggesting. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(7.17) —Senator Michael Baume is certainly capable of quoting a lot of figures, but not of arguing very coherently on the basis of those figures. I simply draw attention to the document from which he was quoting and ask him to have a look at the sections which seem to deal praisingly with cities such as Mexico City and forecast that Australian cities are going to become rather like Mexico City. The document is full of assertions that it is a good thing for populations to grow, but nowhere is there any substantial argument as to why that is the case. It would be a good thing if Australia's population got smaller because Australia is an overpopulated country. Over the last 200 years we have substantially wrecked this environment. The damage to the environment, quite simply, is a product of the number of people acting on that environment multiplied by the per capita demands. Senator Baume belongs to a party that would increase those per capita demands. Rather stupidly, it seeks to increase the number of people in Australia. I simply put the question: What happens when Australia finishes up like Hong Kong and we have people virtually dripping off the edges? Clearly, there is a point at which population growth must stop. One cannot endlessly go on increasing population. The logical question to ask is: At what point do we stop population growth? I suggest that the point at which it should be stopped is when we have a comfortable, sustainable lifestyle, and that is what the Australian Democrats are on about. The lifestyle which we are now leading is not sustainable; we are wrecking our environment. The question must be asked: when do we want to stop? I believe that a case has not been made that increasing our population is of benefit to us. The assertion by Senator Michael Baume that the economy has grown since the Second World War, since we have had an active migration program, is certainly true. But if one brings in more people, of course the population will grow. If each person brought in has an income of x dollars a year, the total revenue and the economy will grow. That does not mean that each individual person in the community is better off. As I have already shown, much of that increasing cost-and Senator Walsh admitted this yesterday-of providing the infrastructure appears in the national accounts as a benefit. But it is not a benefit at all; simply to cover a greater area of land with bitumen and concrete and building houses on it is not necessarily of benefit to people living in Australia. I draw attention again to the document from which Senator Michael Baume has quoted. If he has a close look at that document he will see that two countries that have lower population growth rates than Australia-notably Japan and West Germany-have done remarkably better economically, using the same criteria which his Party would choose to use in regard to benefit. Even if one agreed that there had been an economic benefit to Australia since the Second World War through the migration program, it would not necessarily follow that that economic benefit would continue in the future. Industrial development was clearly beneficial, but it is not necessarily clear that continued industrial development is beneficial. Moreover, it does not necessarily logically follow that Australia could not have achieved considerable economic benefit, as Japan has, without population growth. It could have been achieved in other ways. I suggest that the investments which now have to be made in such things as roads, housing, extra telephones, water supply and those sorts of things, would be better spent in deepening the investment in the sorts of areas that Senator Michael Baume has talked about. Senator REYNOLDS(Queensland-Minister for Local Government)(7.22) —I particularly thank Senator Michael Baume for his very rational contribution to this debate. Senator Short —His what? Senator REYNOLDS —His rational contribution. I thought that earlier Senator Coulter raised some genuine concerns about economic issues, and I provided the figures for him. But I find it rather disturbing that when Senator Coulter talked about infrastructure needs, he said-I believe I am quoting him correctly-that bringing in migrants will not create extra benefits for Australians. I remind Senator Coulter that we are bringing in migrants to be part of Australia as a multicultural society. We do not see people who arrive in this country as being different and that, if we are providing housing for this group or that group, this should be a question for debate. In view of some of the fairly unfortunate comments that have been made in this chamber this week, it is rather surprising to me to hear an Australian Democrat also raise some of these doubts about our immigration policy. That is why I take the somewhat unusual stance of commending Senator Michael Baume. It must be acknowledged that this week the Liberal Party of Australia has made it absolutely clear that it supports the immigration policies of this Government and that we have a bipartisan approach to immigration. We may have differences of opinion about certain procedures but, in essence, we have a bi-partisan approach. That is what multicultural Australia expects and is entitled to. Therefore, I will not refer again to the comments of Senator Stone and Senator Sheil. They have been given sufficient airing, I am sure, for those two senators. I must say I was rather surprised to hear Senator Coulter say that somehow fertility control is related to parents' desire for zero population growth. I certainly know any number of women who choose not to have children or to limit their families, which, of course, is totally their choice. But if I asked them whether they were making that determination, that choice, on the basis of zero population growth, I doubt whether they would comment in the affirmative. People choose their family size for a variety of reasons. I do not believe that the majority are choosing to limit their families-or, indeed, not to have children-because of some commitment to zero population growth. I certainly cannot accept the theory that Senator Coulter put forward this evening. As to the idea that Australia is overpopulated, I think many people in this place would like to take issue with Senator Coulter on that statement. When one looks at Australia's position in the Asian and Pacific region, I doubt whether, if one said outside Australia that Australia was overpopulated, one would be able to convince too many people. Frankly, I doubt whether one would be able to convince many people in Australia that Australia was overpopulated. The other point that concerns me was Senator Coulter's statement that, in regard to immigration issues, we had to consider the importance of maintaining a comfortable, sustainable lifestyle. Again, I cannot see the relationship between whatever definition he may have of comfortable, sustainable lifestyle and Australia's immigration policies. I do not believe that it is socially responsible, given Australia's commitment to a number of humanitarian and refugee programs, for us to talk about a comfortable, sustainable lifestyle. In fact, I think it is a gross insult to many people who seek to come to this country so that they can enjoy so many benefits that this country has to offer. I say to Senator Coulter that a number of us in this place-and, I am sure, a number of people listening to the broadcast of the proceedings-will wait with bated breath to find out whether the views that he holds on over population, in regard to the limiting of the immigration program, are shared by other Australian Democrats, or whether this is another example of the one-man band approach to policy development within the Australian Democrats. Earlier, Senator Jenkins asked me a question about translator and interpreter services in Western Australia. As I said, the Commonwealth has offered to assist the States in setting up the services. Recent advice from Western Australia is that it is interested in further discussions. The Department proposes to take up those discussions shortly, with a view to finalising the matter before the next financial year. So it does seem that Western Australia will take up the offer that has been made by the Commonwealth for some time. In regard to Senator Jenkins's other question relating to migrant accommodation, the migrant centre network which is now used principally for migrant refugees was streamlined by the closure of five centres late in 1985. The emphasis of the Government is on rebuilding self-contained units, which we believe to be more beneficial to people settling in Australia. Rather than their being located in one place, it is far more appropriate for them to have the opportunity to move into different areas of the cities or, indeed, regional areas. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Chairman having reported accordingly- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon) —It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(7.31) —On 23 September this year the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly moved a motion in the following terms: (1) That this Assembly condemns the Federal Government's decision to introduce the Australia Card in its current form or in any similar form, believing that it is a gross infringement on the civil liberties of all Australians; and (2) That it is this Assembly's view that the Northern Territory Government should refuse to co-operate in the implementation of this proposal. That motion was obviously conveyed to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I have a copy of a reply that was forwarded to the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly over the signature of the Special Minister of State, Senator Susan Ryan. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate that letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 16 November 1987 Mr R. Vale P.O. 3721 DARWIN 5794 Dear Mr Vale Thank you for your letter of 24 August 1987 to The Hon. R. J. L. Hawke about the Australia Card. I am glad you took the time to write about this important issue. The Australia Card would have been the single most effective instrument for dealing with tax cheating and welfare fraud. The Government has been prevented from proceeding with the Australia Card legislation because of the obstructive tactics of the Opposition, and will not now be proceeding with it. We are determined not to allow existing tax cheating and welfare fraud to go on unhindered as a result of the Opportunistic actions of the Opposition parties. Those who are cheating the tax and welfare system are, quite simply, shifting a greater burden onto honest taxpayers. The Government is determined that the community should be protected against this unfair burden. Accordingly we will; 1. investigate the wider use of tax file numbers; 2. develop a National Births Deaths and Marriages Register; 3. set up new fraud control measures within Government agencies; and 4. fight organised crime by getting banks to report big financial transactions. The Government remains fully committed to the protection and enhancement of civil liberties, and will be proceeding with its data protection and privacy legislation. I hope we have addressed your concerns, and that you will appreciate the need for this alternative strategy. One thing is certain: we cannot afford to let tax and welfare cheating continue. I have sent you a copy of the Prime Minister's statement, which explains the Government's decision. Yours sincerely SUSAN RYAN Senator TAMBLING —The letter to Mr Vale is an insult. It is an insult from the Prime Minister and it is an insult from the Minister that signed the letter, Senator Susan Ryan, the Special Minister of State. It is addressed to Mr R. Vale, PO 3721, Darwin 5794. Mr Vale is the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Senator Ryan's letter more or less refers to Mr Vale's letter of 24 August to the `Hon. R. J. L. Hawke'. The letter from Senator Ryan does not carry the courtesy title of Hon., to which Mr Vale is entitled. There is no recognition that he is the Speaker of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and, as such, is the figurehead of the Northern Territory people. There is no reference to the fact that the letter is in response to a motion moved in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The reply has obviously been spewed out by a computer. It is something which has obviously been sent to thousands of people who objected to the Australia Card. If people take the time to look at the copy of the letter that has been incorporated in Hansard, they will see that it is just like thousands of others that Ministers of this Government sent out on the Australia Card. I believe that the way in which this correspondence has been handled and the manner in which it has been put down is an insult to the people of the Northern Territory and that this action deserves an apology both from the Prime Minister and from Senator Ryan. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.34 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Canned Fruits Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 268. Christmas Island Act-Ordinance 1987-No. 11-Electricity. Health Insurance Act-Determination pursuant to subsection 4a (7), dated 19 November 1987. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 267. Quarantine Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1987 No. 269. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 9) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Is the Minister for Transport and Communications aware of the alleged employment practices of the Australian Postal Commission, in particular, of the height and weight criteria laid down by the Commission. (2) Is there a need to review the appropriateness and necessity of these criteria, in view of their apparently racially and sexually discriminatory nature. Senator Gareth Evans —The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question, based on information provided by Australia Post: (1) The Australian Postal Commission's employment practices do not include any height, weight or weight-for-height medical standards. The only circumstances where weight or height are considered for employment purposes, given that an applicant is otherwise in good health, would be where extremes of weight or height would expose an employee to a hazard or risk or injury to himself or herself, other employees, or the general public (for example, an applicant for a driving position who may be too small to reach the operating controls of a vehicle). In such cases, practical tests should be used to determine suitability for employment. For superannuation purposes, however, Australian Postal Commission employees are required to be members of the Commonwealth superannuation Fund. This fund has its own General Medical standard for Superannuation which includes a weight-for-height standard which an employee should meet. An applicant may be assessed as suitable for employment even though that applicant does not meet the General Medical Standard. In such cases, a Benefit Classification Certificate is issued by the Commissioner for Superannuation for not meeting the particular standard concerned. (2) Not applicable, for the reasons given in (1). (Question No. 38) Senator Jones asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1987: (1) Does the Murdoch empire now appear to have acquired an almost total monopoly of print media ownership in Queensland and New South Wales, following the latest round of media changes in Australia. (2) Is the Mr Frank Moore, who has now acquired the print media interests of the Northern Star Holdings Ltd group, the same Frank Moore who was formerly General Manager of the Daily and Sunday Sun newspapers in Brisbane when they were owned by Mr Rupert Murdoch. (3) Has the Federal Government access to knowledge of who paid or financed the $37 million dollar deal for Mr Moore to acquire Northern Star Holdings. (4) Has the Federal Government considered the possibility that Mr Moore, as a former employee of Mr Murdoch might might be a ``front man'' for Mr Murdoch in his quest to become the world's largest entrepreneur. (5) What measures does the Federal Government intend to take to prevent the Australian media from falling in to the hands of one man, who happens to be an American. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) No. I draw your attention to the Trade Practices Commission media release (MR 87/7) of 3 March 1987. (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) No. (5) The Government considers that the relevant provision of the Broadcasting Act, and the general provisions of the Trade Practices Act and the Foreign Takeover Act ensure that no one person or company achieves a monopoly position. Senator Walsh —On 6 October 1987 (Hansard, page 723) Senator Tambling asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, a question without notice concerning beef imports to the USA. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Australian Government is not in a position to influence US or Japanese policy regarding their inspection standards for their domestic meat. Equally, the US Government does not interfere with Australian domestic standards for locally produced meat. The Government does, however, negotiate standards with both the US and Japanese Governments regarding the standards for Australian meat imported into these countries. As far as a comparison between the standards for domestic and imported meat in the US is concerned, the US Federal Meat Inspection Act requires that exporting countries apply conditions equivalent to those applying in the United States. Similarly, the Japanese Government requires exporting countries to comply with its own Food Sanitation Law. Testing of foodstuffs imported into Australia is a State and Territory responsibility and the Commonwealth is only concerned with the quarantine aspects. I am not aware of any testing currently carried out on imported US beef. However, a Working Group on Imported Foods was recently set up by the Commonwealth with the aim of looking at whether the present control systems on imported foods are adequate and if there was a need for more Commonwealth involvement in this area. Australian standards for pesticides are comparable to those of the US. Both countries base the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) on the Codex International Standard although in some cases the Australian MRL is more stringent. Senator Walsh —On 7 October 1987 (Hansard, page 800) Senator Chapman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, a question without notice concerning assistance to farmers under the Rural Adjustment Scheme (RAS). The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has supplied me with the following additional information: A total of $41,998,500 has been provided in the 1987-88 Budget for the RAS. This amount consists of the following components: $ Continuing subsidy1 commitments under Part A ...26,998,500 Subsidy for new assistance in 1987-88 ...6,700,000 Total Part A Assistance ...33,698,500 1987-88 Part C ...5,000,000 Total Assistance ...38,698,500 Administration ...3,300,000 Total Appropriation ...41,998,500 (1) The Scheme provides for a subsidy established in any one year to be paid for a total of 7 years so that farmers may receive assistance for up to 7 years. Under Part A of the Scheme eligible farmers who have been unable to obtain commercial finance at reasonable market rates are assisted to return to viability with concessional finance. The funds provided by the Commonwealth under this Part are used to provide an interest subsidy of up to 50% of the cost of borrowings. Under Part C there are two measures, Household Support and Rehabilitation, which aim to alleviate the financial hardship of farmers who cannot be returned to viability under Part A and who are unable to obtain commercial finance at reasonable market interest rates. Household Support, up to a maximum which is equal to the Unemployment Benefit, is made available over 12 months to those who are considering leaving farming. Such assistance may be extended for up to a further 2 years if the applicant takes positive steps to leave farming. Under the Rehabilitation provisions assistance of up to $9,480 (based on $8,000 at 1 July 1985 and indexed to the CPI) is made available to those who have left farming. Part C assistance is initially made in the form of loans, but these are invariably changed to grants and there is no limit on the amount which may be funded in any one year. The following table shows the allocation between States of Part A assistance since the Scheme was established. State 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 $m $m $m N.S.W.... 0.8 7.5 9.6 Vic.... 1.0 6.5 7.9 Qld... 0.5 4.0 5.1 S.A.... 0.4 3.9 4.8 W.A.... 0.7 3.9 4.7 Tas.... 0.1 0.8 0.9 N.T.... 0.1 0.5 0.6 3.6 27.1 33.6 Since the commencement of this program on 1 July 1985 a total of $4.8m Part A subsidy has been appropriated for the use of South Australia. This subsidy will provide some $55m of concessional loans for producers in that State. Included in this amount was a supplementary allocation (in 1986-87) for South Australia which boosted the value of concessional loans by some $7m. This was made to meet a specific request by South Australia. Part C funds are not allocated between States in advance as demand differs between States and payments are made in response to States' claims. However, in 1986-87 the following Part C payments were made to States: State $m N.S.W.... 0.5 Vic.... 2.8 Qld ... 0.3 S.A.... 1.3 W.A.... 1.0 Tas.... 0.02 N.T.... - Total... 5.92 Approved John Kerin