Wednesday, 28 September 1988 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 assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: 1. The Watsonia Army Barracks contains electronic communication facilities, operated by Australian and American personnel, that gives the United States the ability to pin-point Soviet nuclear submarines, hidden in the Oceans. 2. This would make it possible for U.S. killer-submarines to destroy all Soviet nuclear submarines, while the U.S. nuclear submarines launch their missiles in a `first strike' attack. This makes Watsonia a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Watsonia would have a disastrous effect on Melbourne. 3. The `joint U.S.-Australian' bases in Australia endanger rather than protect us. They also add a new menace to the nuclear arms race, that must be stopped. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should close the `joint Australian-U.S.' electronic communication facilities in the Watsonia Army Barracks. by Senator Zakharov (from 75 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Federal Government decision to ban future development in 80% of the Helsham inquiry area and rob Tasmanians of hundreds of jobs in the forest and associated industries is wholly unacceptable. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the Federal Government abide by the majority decision of the Helsham inquiry. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, note that a majority of the Joint Select committee on Video Material has strongly opposed the proposition that a new NVE category will contain that material as defined in the current `X' classification. call upon the Senate to request the Government immediately to implement the recommendation of the majority of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material by introducing substantive legislation to ensure that X rated video material (and its R rated equivalent) is refused classification for the purpose of Commonwealth laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 183 citizens), Calvert (from 66 citizens) and Jones (from 41 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20,000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution so that: The Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to State and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future- Including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and- To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these, including- To prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, The Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Jenkins (from 439 citizens) and Jones (from 12 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Jenkins (from 100 citizens) and Macklin (from 100 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: millions of dollars of taxpayers money is spent at each Federal election in Australia in the drafting, production and distribution of How-to-Vote cards which are unnecessary and pollutant and that this waste is not desirable or essential in assisting the electorate to vote informatively for their parliamentarians. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: urge the Government to introduce legislation which requires that the registered How-to-Vote cards of all political parties and candidates for political office must be placed under glass in every polling booth within obvious sight of all voters, thus making it unnecessary for How-to-Vote cards to be distributed at future federal elections. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 28 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That it be recognised the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill is a public, legal acknowledgement that Australians who are non-aboriginal do not have sovereignty in their own country. 2. That the Australian people are opposed to the idea of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Australian people who are non-aboriginal and those who are aboriginal, and the Government has no mandate or authority to pursue it. 3. That the proposed legislation and treaty will damage Australia's position under international law and in any conflict, will cause distrust and conflict between our aboriginal population (1%) and the non-aboriginal population (99%), will extend aboriginal land rights, contrary to the wishes of the Australian people, will not be acceptable to the aboriginal people themselves, will solve none of the problems of aboriginal people who need housing, health services, education and employment. That therefore, the Senate reject absolutely the announced proposals for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Bill, and the negotiation of a treaty, compact or makarrata between the Commonwealth and aboriginal people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jones (from seven citizens) and Knowles (from 39 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 strongly oppose the proposed World Heritage listing of the Shark Bay Region in Western Australia, either partially or in its entirety, believing that all conservation values of the Shark Bay region will be fully protected under the Shark Bay Region Plan, developed over three years by conservation authorities; and we respectfully request the Parliament and Government to remove the threat of World Heritage listing for Shark Bay by making a firm decision not to proceed with any further consideration of it. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the honourable senators will oppose the World Heritage listing of either a part or the whole of the Shark Bay Region. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Knowles (from 18 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 141 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate, the petition of the undersigned shows: that we oppose any mineral exploration or mining in any part of Kakadu National Park, the Kakadu Conservation Zone, or the Alligator Rivers region. Your petitioners ask that the Senate in Parliament should: halt all mineral exploration and mining in the Kakadu Conservation Zone by revoking current leases and licences and by incorporating the zone in Kakadu National Park and; prevent proposed mining in Kakadu Stages I & II by incorporating the Jabiluka and Koongarra Project in the national park and by proclaiming the whole park under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 12 citizens). The Honourable, the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned shows a request for Medicare benefits for in-vitro fertilisation for the medical treatment of infertile couples. Your petitioners pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled grant Medicare benefits for in-vitro fertilisation, IVF, for the medical treatment of infertile couples. 1 in 10 Australian couples are infertile and unable to conceive and carry a baby to birth. Having a family is one of the most fundamental and rewarding aspects of life and benefits the community as a whole. IVF is an established and proven treatment for infertility. There are existing mechanisms to regulate and control IVF, including the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee. Currently IVF patients pay up to $1,500 per treatment cycle for IVF out of their own pockets. This means that some couples who need IVF to help them establish their own family do not have access. We request that Medicare funding be granted for IVF for the treatment of infertility. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 84 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that while having some reservations on individual aspects of the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 your petitioners wish to express our strong support for the concept of people's democracy implied in that Bill. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will: Refer the abovementioned Bill to an appropriate Parliamentary Committee and will examine the operation of direct democracy procedures overseas with the intention of passing legislation granting such facilities to your petitioners during the Bicentennial year. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Jones (from 20 citizens). To the Honourable the President and the members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60, Caesium-137, Caesium-134 or any machine sources. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government ban the importation of any radio-active substances or machinery for the purpose of food irradiation, disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia and ban the irradiation of food in this country. We also call upon the Federal Government to withdraw from the Asian Regional Co-operative Project on Food Irradiation and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 114 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of the undersigned citizens showeth: that your petitioners deplore the Federal Government's decision to remove 53 pharmaceutical drugs-including the best available for the treatment of high blood pressure, cancer, epilepsy, high cholesterol and uneven heartbeat-and place them for cost saving reasons only on a special list requiring authority from a Canberra bureaucrat, and that we believe a patient's doctor is clearly the best judge for medication needed for their particular illness and that it is therefore wrong and unfair to force that doctor to waste valuable time referring a case to a person in Canberra who has no personal knowledge of that case. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will call on the Government to immediately abandon the proposal and keep its election promise of high quality and universal health care for all Australians. by Senators Calvert (from 255 citizens) and Panizza (from 6,344 citizens). To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia in the Weymouth, Lulworth, Beechford and Pipers River areas of Northern Tasmania respectfully showeth: That notwithstanding the need for future Army Artillery training, the safety of residents from wildfires resulting from impacting shells during the height of summer must be of paramount importance. That the need for Artillery training could be met in the safer months of April to November thus making the area much safer from the regular fires of which the near catastrophic wildfire which almost engulfed the township of Lulworth on the 18th February 1988, is the latest. That a suitable firebreak should be constructed and properly maintained around the impact area of the range as fires will burn uncontrollably at almost all times of the year in this area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable senators will support all moves to reduce the fire hazard in the aforementioned area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Watson (from 573 citizens). Petitions received. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, unless otherwise ordered and notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders- (a) the hours of meeting of the Senate on Thursday, 29 September 1988, be as follows: 10 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.; (b) Question Time be held at 2.30 p.m. on that day; and (c) Matters of Public Interest be not proceeded with on that day. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of Australia who recorded a `no' vote of 67.16 per cent for the first proposal, 62.56 per cent for the second proposal, 66.49 per cent for the third proposal and 69.33 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive Australia-wide rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendum exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: Australia's relations with India, with particular reference to: (a) prospects for increasing trade between the two countries; and (b) the implications for the regional strategic outlook of India's enhanced defence capability. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of New South Wales who recorded a `no' vote of 68.34 per cent for the first proposal, 64.44 per cent for the second proposal, 68.30 per cent for the third proposal and 70.35 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendum exceeded $40 million of taxpayer's money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) request the Government to release its contingency plans dealing with accidents on nuclear-armed vessels visiting Australian ports; (b) request the Government to ban such visits until detailed accident plans, such as those prepared by the New York City Council, in conjunction with the United States (US) Navy, have been prepared and made public; and (c) request that the Government no longer accept the policy by the US and United Kingdom Governments of `neither confirming nor denying' the presence of weapons on board their ships since it is generally recognised that those ships which are nuclear capable do in fact carry nuclear weapons. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of Western Australia who recorded a `no' vote of 69.26 per cent for the first proposal, 67.93 per cent for the second proposal, 70.17 per cent for the third proposal and 71.80 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendum exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of South Australia who recorded a `no' vote of 73.25 per cent for the first proposal, 69.40 per cent for the second proposal, 70.15 per cent for the third proposal and 73.96 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendum exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of Tasmania who recorded a `no' vote of 74.65 per cent for the first proposal, 71.12 per cent for the second proposal, 72.51 per cent for the third proposal and 74.51 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendum exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of Victoria who recorded a `no' vote of 63.82 per cent for the first proposal, 60.02 per cent for the second proposal, 64.02 per cent for the third proposal, and 66.74 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendums exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the overwhelming rejection that the people of rural New South Wales gave to the recent referendum, where in electorates such as Hume, over 82 per cent of electors said `no' on all 4 questions, where in New England 86.99 per cent said `no' to the first proposal, 85.64 per cent said `no' to the second proposal, 85.45 per cent said `no' to the third and 86.96 per cent said `no' to the fourth proposal; (b) notes that even in electorates such as Calare and Hunter, which are held by the Federal Government, the `no' vote ranged from 72.4 per cent to 75.61 per cent for all 4 questions and in Hunter from 73.87 per cent to 77.39 per cent; (c) notes that this is the highest recorded rejection ever of a referendum proposal; (d) notes that the community supported the Opposition's criticism of the spending of over $46 million of taxpayers money on the referendum; (e) further notes that this money was spent at a time when urgent road funding and scientific research projects are being slashed; and (f) calls on the Federal Government to fully justify its outrageous misuse of the public purse. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate: (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of Queensland who recorded a `no' vote of 64.84 per cent for the first proposal, 55.14 per cent for the second proposal, 61.71 per cent for the third proposal and 67.27 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendums exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of 3 of the 4 referendum proposals, and the near rejection of the fourth, by the electors of the Australian Capital Territory who recorded a `no' vote of 56.39 per cent for the first proposal, 60.10 per cent for the third proposal and 59.28 per cent for the fourth proposal-- Senator Colston-What about No. 2? Senator REID —No. 2 was still dramatically below the normal Labor vote in the Australian Capital Territory. Senator Robert Ray-Mr President, I raise a point of order. People are supposed to be reading out notices of motion and we are getting side speeches all the way through. The PRESIDENT —Order! I advise all honourable senators to read the notices of motion and avoid the interjections. Senator REID —I am sorry, Mr President, but I was provoked by an interjection. The notice continues: (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejection of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendum exceeded $40 million of taxpayer's money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (a) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (b) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the presence of nuclear armed warships at the Fleet Review in Sydney Harbour this week which must be considered very inappropriate guests for a birthday commemoration; (b) further notes the continued refusal of the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom to acknowledge that their warships carry nuclear weapons when everyone knows that they do; (c) notes, too, the parallel with the story of the little boy who finally announced that the Emperor had no clothes although all the adults in the crowd had refused to acknowledge what everyone there could see for themselves; (d) commends the Sydney Peace Squadron and Greenpeace for organising non-violent protests against these nuclear armed warships as well as all the other groups around the country who have protested at the presence of these vessels in their harbours; (e) acknowledges the change in public attitude towards nuclear armed warships whereby 50 per cent of Australians are now opposed to such visits and only 24 per cent are in favour, because the nuclear warships are unnecessary risks invited by our government whose Minister for Defence would be better labelled Minister for nuclear risks; and (f) calls on the Australian Government to acknowledge the rising tide of opposition to nuclear warship port calls around the world by following New Zealand's example and banning further visits by nuclear armed warships to our ports. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns Senator Vallentine for her support for the illegal acts of demonstrators who attempted to unlawfully climb aboard the USS Brewton recently while the vessel was visiting the port of Albany, Western Australia at the invitation of the Commonwealth Government on behalf of the Australian people to share in our bicentennial celebrations; (b) condemns Senator Vallentine for her demand that the captain of the Brewton apologise for the actions of his crew who turned water hoses on these demonstrators to prevent their attempted trespass; (c) further condemns Senator Vallentine who, when receiving no apology from the captain of the Brewton, then requested the Minister for Defence to take action over the incident; (d) supports the action of the sailors of the USS Brewton and acknowledges the restraint shown by the officer in charge in the manner with which the illegal protesters were dealt, both then, and on the previous day, when a demonstrator had tied himself to a mast of the ship; (e) notes Senator Vallentine's support for law-breakers and those engaged in illegal harassment; and (f) totally rejects Senator Vallentine's assertion that these demonstrators were engaged in `Democratic and peaceful protest' and that the United States Navy should treat `protesters with more caution and respect'. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the decisive rejection of the 4 referendum proposals by the electors of the Northern Territory who recorded a `no' vote of 61.62 per cent for the first proposal, 56.81 per cent for the second proposal, 60.97 per cent for the third proposal and 62.71 per cent for the fourth proposal; (b) notes that this decisive rejection reflected the record rejections of the proposals in every State of the Commonwealth; (c) notes that the referendum proposals were brought forward by the Hawke/Keating Government and pushed through the Senate, with the assistance of the Australian Democrats, in terms which were patently misleading and without any genuine attempt to obtain Opposition support for a proposal for a longer term for the Federal Parliament on a basis which would not have threatened the vital role of the Senate in protecting the interests of the people of Australia; (d) notes that the record failure of the 4 proposals is another example of the incompetence of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Lionel Bowen, who is rapidly proving an embarrassment to the Government; (e) notes that the cost of promoting and conducting the referendums exceeded $40 million of taxpayers' money at a time when expenditure on the sick and the elderly is being reduced by the Hawke/Keating Government allegedly in the interest of economic management, and (f) calls on the arrogant and out-of-touch Hawke/Keating Government to give: (i) a full accounting of the total costs of its now discredited campaign against the Australian Constitution, and (ii) an undertaking not to bring forward further proposals for constitutional change without full consultation with the Liberal and National Party Opposition and the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party which is clearly much more in tune with the views of the Australian people on the necessity to protect the Constitution. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls on Senator Button to apologise to the Senate and the Australian people on behalf of the Australian Government for the wilful waste of $46 million of taxpayers' money that could be better spent on the sick and elderly; and (b) notes the lack of commitment by Labor parliamentarians to push for `Ayes' votes, leaving their Deputy Leader, Mr Bowen, high and dry without a friend in the Australian Labor Party. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) express its concern at the high levels of taxation and spending of the Cain Labor Government in Victoria; (b) confirms that State taxation revenue under the Cain Government in Victoria has more than doubled to $4.35 billion, or over $1000 per head of population; (c) confirms that State Government spending in Victoria has increased at an annual average rate of 3 per cent in real terms, or more than double in nominal terms; (d) confirms that the Victorian Budget deficit under the Cain Government will exceed $1 billion in 1988; (e) expresses its concern that the Cain Government's irresponsible fiscal policy in Victoria is placing an unacceptable burden on Victorians and all Australians. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls on the International Committee of the Red Cross to admit the Magen David Adom (Red Shield of David) Society of Israel to membership of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the article in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 28 September 1988 dealing with problems associated with the genital wart virus; (b) congratulates the Sydney Morning Herald for publicly raising this issue; (c) notes the comments of Senator Cook on 18 May 1988 that `consideration has been given to creating a specific item for treatment of warts where the complexity of a procedure is such that the benefit on an attendance basis is inadequate, for example, where general or regional anaesthesia and admission to hospital are required'; and (d) urges Senator Cook to promptly inform Senators of the outcome of those considered and any other action the Government is prepared to take in order to deal with this serious problem. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Cain Labor Government for its deliberate pursuit of economic policies based on massive increases in government spending, government borrowing, and the sale of public assets; (b) notes with profound concern that these policies have led to: (i) growth in public service employment more than 3 times greater than in other States, (ii) a 140 per cent increase in the level of taxation, (iii) a 13.5 per cent increase in State taxation as a proportion of Victorian non-farm product, (iv) the largest net borrowing requirement of any State in the Commonwealth, (v) an increase of 108% per cent in the level of State debt, (vi) a debt servicing crisis which threatens the financial viability of Victoria, and (c) calls upon Victorians to vote the Cain Government out of office on 1 October 1988 before the damage done to the Victorian economy becomes irreparable. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) calls upon the Federal Government to defer the household expenditure survey presently being conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, pending the outcome of a full inquiry into whether the survey breaches Article 13 of International Labour Conference Convention 160; (b) notes that Convention 160 requires that statistics of household expenditure . . . and income . . . shall be compiled in such a way as to be representative of the country as a whole; (c) further notes that 5.32 per cent of Australia's total population residents of Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory will provide 20.55 per cent of the respondents for the survey, under the Government's present arrangements; and (d) express its opposition to the imposition of this onerous burden on the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and Tasmania and calls upon the Government to immediately suspend the conduct of this intrusive survey until its legal status has been resolved. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes the remarks by Senator Ray of 31 August 1988 to the effect that there would be a delay in the signing of certain letters in his office as a consequence of the Opposition calling for a quorum, which delay would be directed to requests by Opposition members and Senators; (b) notes Senator Button's endorsement of those remarks on that day as a very sensible response to the Opposition's call for a quorum that day; (c) notes that the law with respect to the exercise of administrative powers conferred by statute is well established, in that such powers must be exercised in good faith, without reliance upon irrelevant considerations and in accordance with the rules of natural justice or, at least, fairly; and (d) regrets the Government's apparent departure from these rules as foreshadowed by Senator Ray and endorsed by Senator Button. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with deep regret the decision of Dr Trevor Scott to resign his position as Head of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Animal Production Unit; (b) notes Dr Scott's actions are a direct result of this Government's savage attack on the CSIRO and particularly its Animal Production Unit, which has suffered a 50 per cent cut in finance over the past 6 years; (c) notes the budget cuts have been made at the same time as a $46 million failed attempt to centralise the Federal Government's powers and to weaken State government; (d) acknowledges the outstanding contribution Dr Scott and his Unit have made to the advancement of rural science, and in particular, the work they have attempted to continue under unfair and severe budgetary constraints placed on them by the Hawke Government; and (e) calls on the Federal Government and the CSIRO Chairman, Neville Wran, to justify their shortsighted and ill-considered actions which have effectively disembowelled the nation's foremost research institution. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) condemns the Federal Government for its arrogantly unwarranted attack on aged people living in retirement villages and homes who are now forced to pay capital gains tax if they decide to sell their units or town-houses; (b) notes that this anomaly arises because retired people cannot get an exemption under the `principle place of residence' provisions of the capital gains tax legislation because they do not `own' their place of retirement, they only have a `licence to reside' in their homes; (c) expresses its alarm at the fact that a person owning a million dollar home in a well-to-do area is exempt from paying the capital gains tax, while an aged person living in a retirement unit valued at $75,000 is not; (d) further notes that this is a very serious anomaly which has the potential to affect thousands of retired and semi-retired people and which could push many into poverty; (e) calls upon the out of touch Hawke/Keating Government to amend the capital gains tax legislation immediately to ensure that those living in retirement villages and homes are not discriminated against by forcing them to pay a tax which everyone else is exempted from. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) welcomes naval vessels from around the world which have come to take part in an international Naval Review in order to share in Australia's bicentennial celebrations; (b) expresses the hope and desire that this Review will promote greater goodwill and understanding amongst naval nations and will reflect and support Australia's aim of fostering lasting world peace; and (c) acknowledges that peace can only occur through security and, therefore, supports the continued development and maintenance of a strong navy, for both Australia and our allies, which is able to meet the future needs of not only the Australian nation, but also that of the western alliance. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the rapid escalation of the Victorian State debt, from $11.3 billion in 1982 to $23.6 billion in 1988; (b) confirms that the level of debt per capita is around $5,500; (c) confirms that interest commitments on debt in 1988 will rise 13.5 per cent to $1.3 billion; and (d) expresses its concern that the impact of the high-spending, high-debt policies of the Cain Labor Government will be a deterioration in living standards not only for Victorians, but for all Australians. Senator SHORT(Victoria) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) acknowledges the importance to the Victorian economy of an efficient and productive building industry in that State; (b) notes the fact that slanderous graffiti and posters have recently appeared on many Victorian building sites; (c) notes that neither the Cain nor Hawke Labor Governments have publicly denounced such graffiti and posters, or their instigators; (d) condemns both the Cain and Hawke Labor Governments for their failure to support the legal activities of independent contractors, Trouble Shooters Available, which is the object of the graffiti and posters; (c) congratulates Trouble Shooters Available, a Victorian-based building industry sub-contracting firm, for its efforts to supply the Victorian industry with its labour requirements, despite constant harassment; (f) deplores the failure of both the Cain and Hawke Labor Governments to take positive measures against destructive trade union power to ensure the most efficient and productive work practices in the Victorian building industry; (g) notes that the harassment and other obstacles to which Trouble Shooters Available has been subjected undermines the `productive culture' attitude which is vital for Victoria's and the nation's future economic prosperity; and (h) calls upon both the Cain and Hawke Labor Governments: (i) to instigate an inquiry into these matters, and (ii) to state publicly their support for the rights of independent sub contractors in the building industry. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the Senate on any day concluding its consideration of any item of business and prior to the Senate proceeding to the consideration of another item of business, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Dunn moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the Senate proceeding to the consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Orders, I shall move: That so much of the Sessional Order relating to the consideration of Government Papers be suspended as would prevent Senator Dunn moving a motion relating to the order in which the papers are called on by the president. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 64, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Dunn moving an amendment to the motion. Contingent Notice of Motion Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the Chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a Bill, or any stage of a Bill, has expired, I shall move: That so much of Standing Order 407b be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the Bill, or the stage of the Bill, without limitation of time or for a specified time. Contingent Notice of Motion Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the Chair declaring that the time allotted for the consideration of a Bill, or any stage of a Bill, has expired, I shall move: That so much of Standing Order 407b be suspended as would prevent the questions being put in respect of any amendments circulated by Senator Dunn, any other Independent Senator, the Australian Democrats, or the Opposition, and that such questions be put accordingly. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the President proceeding to the placing of business on any day, I shall move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Dunn moving a motion relating to the order of business on the Notice Paper. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —I give notice that, contingent on the moving of a motion to debate a matter of urgency under standing order 64 and the expiration of time provided for discussion of the motion, I shall move: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Question on the matter of urgency being put forthwith. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —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. THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE WELFARE TRUST FUND-Annual Report 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 34 of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947. 2. REPORT OF THE 103RD SESSION OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-Hobart, June 1987-clause 21 of the National Health and Medical Research Council Order. 3. MEDICAL RESEARCH 1987-National Health and Medical Research Council Report-section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937. 4. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT-to the housing Agreement dated 12 March 1985 between the Commonwealth of Australia and the States and the Northern Territory of Australia-section 5 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984. 5. AUSTRALIAN MARITIME COLLEGE-Annual Report of Council 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 39 of the Maritime College Act 1978. 6. METEOROLOGY POLICY COMMITTEE-Annual Report 1987. 7. COASTAL SHIPPING-Industries Assistance Commission Report No. 415-dated 20 July 1988. 8. CHRISTMAS ISLAND SERVICES CORPORATION-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 27 of the Services Corporation Ordinance 1984. 9. INSURANCE AND SUPERANNUATION COMMISSION LIFE INSURANCE GROUP-Annual Report 1987-section 11 of the Life Insurance Act 1945-together with a Half Yearly Financial Bulletin on Life Insurance-June 1987. 10. CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION-Report of Council 1987-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967. 11. RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION-Annual Report 1986-87-including the Auditor-General's Report-section 14 of the Murray-Darling Basin Act 1983. Motion (by Senator Reid) agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Michael Baume for the period from 27 to 30 September 1988, inclusive, on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business. Motion (by Senator Macklin) put: (1) That, if a Senate Minister does not answer a question on notice asked by a Senator within 30 days of the asking of that question, and does not, within that period, provide to the Senator who asked the question an explanation satisfactory to that Senator of why an answer has not yet been provided, then- (a) at the conclusion of Question Time on any day after that period, the Senator may ask the relevant Minister for such an explanation, and (b) the Senator may, at the conclusion of the explanation, move without notice `That the Senate take note of the explanation', or (c) in the event that the Minister does not provide an explanation, the Senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to the Minister's failure to provide either an answer or an explanation. (2) That the provisions of the foregoing resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 8 —— Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J.Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Powell, J. F.Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G.Calvert, P. H. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sanders, N. K.Coulter, J. R. Sheil, G.Dunn, I. P. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J.Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Knowles, S. C. (Teller) Vallentine, J.McGauran, J. J. Vanstone, A. E.MacGibbon, D. J. Walters, M. S.McLean, P. A. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Evans, GarethBeahan, M. E. Foreman, D. J.Black, J. R. Gietzelt, A. T.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Maguire, G. R.Collins, R. L. Morris, J. J.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Schacht, C. C.Crowley, R. A. Tate, M. C.Devereux, J. R. Walsh, P. A.Devlin, A. R. Zakharov, A. O. Lewis, A. W. R. Sibraa, K. W.Baume, Michael Bolkus, N.Chaney, F. M. Richardson, G. F.Messner, A. J. Giles, P. J.Hill, R. M. Reynolds, M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(10.52) —I move: That the Pharmaceutical Benefits Declaration, as contained in Declaration No. PB 3 of 1988 and made under subsection 85 (2) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. This is a motion to disallow changes which have been made in the way in which certain pharmaceuticals are provided to the people of Australia. It is yet another example of the extent to which the behaviour of the Hawke-Keating Government is both arrogant and out of touch with the real needs of the people of Australia. It is a decision which has been taken exclusively for crass financial reasons and without any proper medical or scientific justification. It is a decision which may prejudice the health and, indeed, may cost the lives of ordinary Australians. Senator Crowley —Go, Senator! Nothing like going over the top at the beginning of a debate. Senator PUPLICK —This is a statement which reduces Senator Crowley to her usual giggling incompetence and simply demonstrates the extent to which she, together with members of the Australian Labor Party, hold in contempt the proper health care standards required for the people of Australia. It is a decision taken-- Senator Crowley —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would like the honourable senator to withdraw that remark about my contemptuous holding in regard to the claims he has just attributed to me. I do not hold them in contempt and I ask the senator to withdraw them. Senator Peter Baume —I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. The standing order to which the honourable senator refers is standing order 418. Nothing Senator Puplick has said in any way contravenes any provision of standing order 418. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —I think that the matter raised by Senator Crowley is really a matter of debate. Senator Crowley may be able to raise it in the debate that will ensue. Senator PUPLICK —As I said, this decision which has been taken on purely financial grounds is one which needs the attention of the Senate and which should be resolved by passage of this disallowance motion. The issue which is central to this debate is the moves which have been made by the Government to place 53 drugs on a special and restricted method of prescription-namely, the use of the Authority Only list. I seek leave to table a list of the drugs which are involved in this particular pharmaceutical declaration. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK —This means that as from 1 August 1988 we are faced with a situation in which a faceless bureaucrat is placed between the doctor and the patient. Doctors will be forced to seek departmental approval before their prescription of more advanced and thus more expensive drugs are filled. The clinical decision making of doctors will be usurped by the decision that cheaper alternative drugs are suitable for certain medical conditions. The advice of specialist medical practitioners may well be ignored by the decision of the departmental bureaucrat. There will be a two-class system of pharmaceutical care, with older products being available through the PBS-the pharmaceutical benefits scheme-to pensioners and the disadvantaged while new drugs will be available to those who can afford to pay where, in fact, they are faced with a negative decision from the bureaucracy. The very pharmaceutical products that provide significant benefits to patients, reduce hospitalisation and patient procedures and improve the quality of life will be restricted by bureaucratic procedures and on the basis of capacity to pay. These changes are totally impractical. They will involve substantial increases in unproductive paperwork for doctors. I shall return to that in a moment. It is anticipated that at least 1.6 million authorities in a full year will be required under this system with the potential for bureaucratic bottlenecks and delays being occasioned. In an excellent speech in the House of Representatives on 25 July, my Liberal colleague Mr Halverson, the honourable member for Casey, dealt at some length with the bottlenecks which are likely to occur as a result of this particular decision. I turn specifically to discuss some of the drugs which are on the list of 53 drugs requiring authority. Of those 53, just seven drugs represent something like 75 per cent of the prescriptions written and 90 per cent of the cost to government. Those drugs are used primarily in the control of high blood pressure, for reducing high cholesterol levels, for regulating uneven heart beat, and for epilepsy. Without attempting to specify the generic names of the drugs concerned, I will simply indicate that these seven are the so-called ACE inhibitors, that is, the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors Renitec and Capoten, which are used primarily for high blood pressure, the high cholesterol control drugs Questran and Colestid, the uneven heart beat regulating drugs Cardizem and Tambocor and Epilim, a key drug used to control epilepsy. I want to concentrate primarily on the use of ACE inhibitors and their value and importance in dealing with what in fact should be an increasingly significant part of the health care arrangements of Australians-namely, preventive health care. The State and Territory health Ministers, in April 1988, announced their intention to attack heart disease and, in particular, to take steps to attack the lifestyle conditions and the conditions which lead to the enormous degree of morbidity and mortality in Australia which is related to heart disease. The report of the task force on cardiovascular disease made to the Better Health Commission estimated that heart disease cost Australia approximately $600m in hospital and medical services and $900m to $1,400m in productivity losses in 1984 alone. If one looks at the report prepared by Paul Gross and Richard Taylor entitled the Total Economic Cost of Disease in Australia and the Contribution of Smoking, High Blood Pressure and Cholesterol, 1985-86, one will see that they estimate that more than 2.5 million years of normal healthy life are lost to Australians because of sickness, disease and premature death related to the three major avoidable factors: smoking, hypertension and high cholesterol. They contribute nearly 25 per cent of that particular loss. These particular drugs to which I am referring in terms of the ACE inhibitors are drugs which are used in the regulation of high cholesterol and in the regulation of patient care related to difficulties in managing stroke and high blood pressure. I want to go through some of the representations which have been made dealing with the question of ACE inhibitors and the role which they play in preventive health care. A submission made by the Chairman of the High Blood Pressure Council of Australia, Mr P. I. Korner, draws attention to the fact: That the ACE-inhibitors did not possess some of the undesirable side-effects, particularly on cholesterol and other lipids, that were a feature of many beta-blockers and diuretics, used in the treatment of hypertension. He goes on therefore to indicate the extent to which it is believed by his Council that these particular drugs, which are certainly more expensive and certainly more up to date in terms of the management of this particular problem, are appropriate drugs to be available on a far more widespread basis, not on a restricted basis which the Government is now proposing. Dr Robert Hodge, the Director of the National Heart Foundation, has made the point that he believes that the steps taken by the Government will indeed be entirely counterproductive in the management of these particular diseases. The clinical pharmacologist at the Monash Medical School, Professor John McNeil, has estimated that 1.4 million Australians over the age of 30 have cholesterol levels above that which is regarded as desirable and, indeed, that substantial savings could be achieved if only half of them were to be treated with one of the drugs which is currently now being made more difficult to obtain, more difficult to prescribe. A submission by the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand makes the point that one of the important things about the alternatives currently being used to manage these particular conditions, rather than the use of ACE inhibitors, in fact has been found to have such side effects as to cause people to give up taking the necessary medication. One such side effect can be male impotence. The Society says in its submission that `the high cumulative withdrawal rate of up to 40-45 per cent of patients on active treatment' in terms of using a drug other than the ACE inhibitors is one of the factors which lead it to conclude that there is: . . . a case for less, rather than more restriction on the use of Ace-inhibitors in the management of hypertension. They say that this would acknowledge present international opinions and the trends to current use in Australia. However, these are the drugs which the Government is determined to make more difficult and less accessible. Professor John Shaw, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Sydney, has questioned the wisdom of this particular Government move and was reported as saying in an article which appeared in the Australian of 15 August: The decision will make it difficult to implement governmental policy on cholesterol levels and may place some patients unnecessarily at risk of death. This is the point which I have made. Presumably Senator Cook will tell us that his judgment and the judgment of Dr Blewett are to be preferred to the judgment of a clinical pharmacologist in this particular matter who draws our attention to the fact that this puts some patients unnecessarily at risk of death. I turn now to the submission by Professor Barry McGrath, Associate Professor of Medicine at Monash University, in which he says that the particular drugs which the Government is now seeking to restrict: . . . have rapidly gained a dominant role in treating these common conditions because they have significant advantages over other types of drugs. I turn to an abstract of an article by Malcolm and others in the New Zealand Medical Journal of April 1988 in which it is indicated: Pooled data from clinical trials show that the incidence of fatal and nonfatal strokes combined is reduced by approximately 39 per cent . . . with antihypertensive treatment . . . This article states that the saving of this reduction to the New Zealand health budget could be as high as $1.822m. Again, these are the very drugs which this Government is determined to make much more difficult to prescribe. In terms of comments about the views of eminent persons in the medical community on this matter, I conclude by looking at a letter sent to me by Professor Priscilla Kincaid-Smith, the Professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Melbourne and Director of Nephrology at Royal Melbourne Hospital. She says in part: As a consultant, I would only see these patients- that is, patients who have had side effects from treatment by other drugs- infrequently when a problem arises and the prescription is provided by the local practitioner. Studies have shown that Authority listing reduces the use of drugs because of the bureaucratic waste of time and effort involved in prescription of drugs restricted in this way. I understand that the PABC- the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee- considered an Authority listing for the ACE inhibitors early this year but decided, quite correctly, that such a move was not appropriate. The implementation of an Authority listing now as a government cost-cutting measure is without medical justification. In the long term it will almost certainly cause an increase in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity because of poorer control of blood pressure and poor compliance because of side effects. Authority listing for ACE inhibitors will be a serious blow to all who believe in preventive medicine. Senator Cook —Alarmist nonsense. Senator PUPLICK —I am glad that Senator Peter Cook, this expert from the trade union movement, has put that on the record about Professor Priscilla Kincaid-Smith, one of the most significant medical authorities in this country, a world authority, a person whom this Government has appointed to numerous bodies, including, I think, the Australian Science and Technology Council on occasions and certainly a number of the most significant medical advisory bodies to which this Government can appoint any medical specialist in Australia. He takes the name of one of the most important, one of the most significant medical practitioners in this country, a person of international reputation, and accuses this professor, this eminent physician, of spreading alarmist nonsense. There could be nothing more revealing of this Government's attitude than for Senator Cook, with all of his wealth of trade union experience in Western Australia, to set himself up as a superior judge of medical knowledge to one of the most world renowned, eminent physicians practising in Australia. It is absolutely typical of the arrogant, overbearing, incompetent and out of touch approach which Senator Cook, Dr Blewett and all their mates bring to the management of public health in Australia. Their claims for restricting these drugs are capable of being refuted even on the basis of the so-called economic arguments that they want to put forward. It is a fact that over the eight years from 1977 to 1984 the number of prescriptions for cardiovascular drugs grew at an average of 7.1 per cent per annum. However, during the period from 1985 to 1987, as ACE inhibitors became available on the PBS scheme, this growth slowed dramatically to 2 per cent in 1985 and 1.4 per cent in 1986, and there was a decline of 4 per cent in 1987. So the argument that this is leading to some sort of blow-out in prescriptions and therefore a blow-out in costs is actually refuted by the facts which are available. The numbers of cardiovascular prescriptions and doctors visits have declined since the PBS listing of ACE inhibitors. I turn now to an example of the way in which the bureaucratic nightmare has affected individual practitioners. I quote some of the cases from a letter which was sent by a specialist physician and cardiologist based at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. He gives a number of examples of what this new system-these new restrictions-means to him in a practical daily sense, including: For Mrs A. M. two separate authority prescriptions were provided and a third prescription had to be written for her other regular medications, e.g. Adalat tablets, Zyloprim and Nicotinic Acid. This patient is a vascular cripple and her medications are totally appropriate yet I was called upon to write the patient's name and address and pensioner entitlement number three times. I had to write my own name and address and my contact phone number the same number of times. The next patient, Mrs A. L., also a resistant hypertensive with multiple drug intolerances, needed two separate authority prescriptions for Questran sachets and Renitec and a third prescription for Aprinox and Trandate. Then came Mrs R. W. who required an authority prescription for Enalapril, and another regular prescription for Adalat. Her third form was for a renal angiogram which is now needed. Then came Mrs L. McN. who required an authority prescription for Captopril and another for Tenormin and Minipress. This lady has a litany of previous anti-hypertensive intolerances and has had longstanding hypertension dating back to the bad days of ganglion blockers. Another patient, Mrs B, required an authority prescription for Plendil. He goes on to give a whole series of examples of how he has to spend that much more of his time writing out forms for no other purpose than to satisfy the requirements of some bureaucrats, who require him to spend time putting forward an additional amount of paperwork simply to satisfy all of these requirements which the Government has now put upon him. The Government cannot blame, as it continually does, the medical profession for the blow-out in the costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. There is a whole variety of reasons why there has been a substantial increase in the cost of this scheme, including the fact that increases in costs have been granted to drug manufacturers by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Bureau. Since July 1986 the Bureau has granted increases totalling $62.7m. The fall in the value of the Australian dollar relative to other major international currencies has contributed to the increased costs of the PBS, as a high proportion of the drugs are imported, and new drugs have been listed as benefits, most of which have higher average prices than the average for existing items. In other words, the attempt of this Government permanently to blame the medical profession, permanently to victimise and vilify doctors, in the way in which Senator Walsh does at every conceivable opportunity, for the cost of the increase in PBS is simply not correct. Since 1975 the cost of pharmaceuticals has significantly reduced, from 13 per cent to 8 per cent of total health care costs. Australia's per capita expenditure on pharmaceuticals is something like $46.84 a year, compared with $73.43 in New Zealand, $115.50 in the United States of America, $149.40 in Italy and $177.20 in West Germany. The fact is that Australian pharmaceutical drugs are cheap by international standards and the new drugs represent extremely cost effective health care alternatives to hospitalisation and surgery. Time does not permit me to go at great length into the way in which the statements made by the Finance Minister and other economic Ministers in the Government have deliberately misrepresented the projections of additional costs which may be involved as new drugs come on to the various lists and become available. The extrapolations which Senator Walsh has attempted to put on the public record simply ignore the economic and natural history of the way in which the cost of drugs has traditionally been high for a short period of time and has then significantly fallen away. This facile extrapolation of a single year increase over a projected period of the next three years, which Senator Walsh has used to justify his claims about the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, is simply not correct. In an article by Professor John Shaw of the Department of Clinical Pharmacology of the University of Sydney, which appeared in the 15 August edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, he says: Furthermore, the decision to add 53 drugs to the authority list is a poorly-disguised attempt to camouflage the restriction of the angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitor agents and to forestall a further blow-out in the costs of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as the new cholesterol-lowering drugs become available. Presumably Professor Shaw also is an alarmist and the sort of person whose word cannot be taken against the considerable medical expertise of the industrial relations officer from Western Australia who will be following me in this debate! Perhaps under those circumstances he should address his mind to Dr Neal Blewett's press release of 19 November 1985, in which he moved to take off existing lists the drugs which are now to go back on them. Dr Blewett, with a great fanfare, as we usually get from him, said: Chronically ill patients will be the major beneficiaries of Federal Government moves to free up the availability of prescription drugs supplied under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme . . . The changes will give more freedom to doctors to prescribe as they see fit . . . The drugs which were taken off the authority only list include captopril, demeclocycline hydrochloride, fucidic acid, penicillamine and tobramycin sulphate, all of which now go back on the list. Dr Blewett took those off the list in November 1985 with a great fanfare about how it would benefit chronically ill patients and allow doctors more freedom to prescribe according to their best medical judgment, and he removed from the specific purpose list under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme three other drugs-azathioprine, chlorambucil and methrotrexate-all of which now go back on the list again. In other words, we have a series of three drugs that went off the specific purpose list onto the generally available list and we have seven drugs that went off authority only onto specific purpose, all of which now come back onto authority only. There is simply no justification for that. We know what happened in this instance was that a meeting was demanded of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee at short notice and without proper background being provided. The Committee was instructed to examine all those drugs which cost more than $30 and not to decide which should go on the authority only list but to decide which drugs should not now be included on the authority only list. They made certain decisions about things like injectable insulin to help them off the list, but they were put under the hammer to put on the list as many as they could of the drugs available over the $30 mark. Dr Wal Grigor of that Committee was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 7 September as saying that the PBAC had been forced to make hasty decisions when the Government asked it to select drugs. He said: We met in Canberra on the Monday before the May Statement and we did not get any warning before the meeting. . . It was the Committee's view that decisions were reached in some haste and they would all need to be looked at in the future. Indeed they will, and they should be looked at by this motion being passed and the PBAC going back and doing the sort of job that it ought to do, not under Government pressure but on the basis of the best medical evidence. I come finally to Senator Cook's friend and colleague, Mr Keith Wilson, the Minister for Health in the Government of Western Australia. I presume he is a friend and colleague. Senator Cook —Of course he is. Senator PUPLICK —He put an advertisement in the newspapers on 26 August which says: The Commonwealth Government has decided that 53 prescription drugs will require special authority from the Commonwealth Department of Health before they may be prescribed under pharmaceutical benefits regulations. The Western Australian Government is fighting for an urgent review of the drugs on this list. Some of these drugs are crucial to the treatment of diseases such as cancer, heart disease and epilepsy-and there are no satisfactory alternatives. I am convinced that patients are suffering as a result of these changes. Alarmist propaganda? Alarmist nonsense? Senator Cook —He is wrong. Senator PUPLICK —No, of course he is not. This is a mate. Senator Cook cannot say things like that about mates. All he can say about mates is something quiet and orderly. He can abuse eminent medical practitioners, but he cannot abuse his Party mates in Western Australia. It will be interesting to see how many Western Australian senators cross the floor and sit on our side of the division when this motion is put, on the basis that their own State Minister for Health and Government in Western Australia has not only published this advertisement but has also set up a hot line so that people can phone up and tell everybody. In the advertisement the Minister goes on to say: I have already travelled over East- it sounds like one of the three wise men going to Bethlehem- to meet the Commonwealth Minister, and to tell him of my total opposition to the aspects of this Federal decision that threaten the health and well-being of Western Australians. When Senator Cook was asked by Senator Crichton-Browne on 30 August whether he was going to do anything about it, Senator Cook gave one of those rare, simple, straightforward answers: he said no. Under these circumstances one can see the degree of confusion which has been occasioned by the decision for which the Government alone bears responsibility. Philip McIntosh, writing in the Age of 8 September, said of this: Doctors have objected that many of the drugs included on the authority list-such as Epilem for epilepsy and the anti-cancer drugs-may have no alternatives, or no suitable alternatives for many patients. The blame for this must rest largely with the Government. We know that it does because of the way in which the PBAC was not allowed to do its job properly; was not allowed to do its job purely on the basis of medical considerations, but was simply told to examine all those pharmaceuticals costing more than $30 to see which of them it could take steps to restrict. In doing so it has picked on a number of drugs, including those which are absolutely central to the management of heart conditions, hypertension and high cholesterol, which this Government has otherwise identified as a high priority in its public health agenda. This move is to sacrifice ordinary Australians on the altar of the Government's economic ideologies and prejudices-the idea of Keating, Walsh, Blewett and Hawke to make disadvantaged Australians pick up yet more of the burden of the economic cost of their mismanagement in order to transfer the benefits to their rich and powerful mates. The sort of philosophy which underlies the whole of the policies of Mr Keating, the honourable member for Manhattan, and this Government needs radical examination. It is an absolute shame and a disgrace that $46m has been wasted on promoting four tawdry referendum questions which were totally rejected by the electors in every State when it is the poor and the sick that have to pay for it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources)(11.22) —Madam Acting Deputy President-- Senator Knowles —This will be a beauty. Senator COOK —It will indeed. Senator Knowles should sit in her place, put her seat belt on and wait. We heard from Senator Puplick a speech of sound and fury which in the end signified nothing. Perhaps if it signified anything at all it was an interesting juggling of pronunciations of the chemical names of drugs. The central fallacy in what Senator Puplick has put is that if people miss out on approval for one of these drugs they will have to pay more; they will have to pay the full market price of the drug. That is the central fallacy that he has put. It is not true. If one removes that premise from the long, windy, rhetorical argument that we have heard, the whole thing crumbles like a house of cards. What is the case, what will be mentioned by the Government as the case and what is increasingly understood by the community as the case is that if a medical practitioner certifies the drug he prescribes and it is on the list that we seek to add to, that drug will be approved and will be available. If the patient is a pensioner, the drug will be free. If the patient is a low income earner or unemployed he will pay $2.50 for the dispensing of his prescription. If the patient is, like the rest of us, a full wage person, he will pay $11, unless he is a person who suffers chronic illness, in which case after 25 prescriptions have been dispensed the remainder will be free. The central premise that it will cost more to get the medication a patient wants, even if a medical practitioner believes that that is the appropriate medication, is just not true. That point has to be emphasised as strongly as possible. It was a tawdry effort by Senator Puplick to try to blackguard me and attack the man, not the ball, when I referred to his quote from Professor Priscilla Kincaid-Smith as being alarmist nonsense. That tawdry effort can be answered simply and I answer it now before I go into the text of my speech. What Senator Puplick was quoting Professor Kincaid-Smith as saying was that people will somehow have their treatment restricted or impaired. That is alarmist nonsense. By the way, that does not reflect on Professor Kincaid-Smith's eminence in the field in which she is an expert. I do not in any way seek to judge that. But if she ventures into the field of the impact of this proposal on patients, that is a general field and her eminence in her particular field does not necessarily qualify her to participate in the argument. I am right. On behalf of the Government I do not resile at all from saying that the way in which Senator Puplick presented those quotes was alarmist nonsense. We have before the Senate a motion for disallowance of a declaration that the Government proposes to introduce. The disallowance motion, if carried, will have a number of serious unintended consequences. It seems to me that Senator Puplick, in framing his disallowance motion, has either by design, accident or sloppiness ventured into a realm in which there are a number of impacts he has not thought through. Given the nub of his speech, it is intended to prevent the 53 drugs from being added to the list. That is what Senator Puplick said in his speech. Four other impacts will then follow. We have added three new drugs to the list. If the disallowance motion were to be carried, those three new drugs would be disbarred from the list. One of them is an important cardiovascular drug, sotalol hydrochloride. There are five drugs which are prescribed on the list in new forms or strengths. If this disallowance motion is carried, they will fall. There are 22 new items which have been deleted from the list simply because they are out of manufacture or because the technical committee has recommended their deletion because of therapeutic concerns. It is appropriate that they come out. The unthinking approach of the Opposition is not to remove them. There are eight alterations to the restrictions on usage of drugs. In the case of one of them, it is a relaxation of the conditions. In the case of some of the others it is a tightening of the conditions. The opinion of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is that those alterations should be made. There are unintended consequences of mindlessly following this attempt by Senator Puplick to besmirch the Government and put money into the pockets of the big drug companies. For the record, that should be-- Senator Puplick —So it is an attempt to restrict the economics of it? Senator COOK —I will come to that. In ascending order of stupidity, I want to reveal what Senator Puplick's proposal would do. It is appropriate and proper for a government to be concerned about the cost of prescribed drugs. Some of these drugs cost over $1,000 each. Some of them cost much more than what the technical committee regards as adequate substitutes in some cases. Given the escalating cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, it is appropriate that a government, exercising proper and prudent restraint, look at how those expenses are blowing out. Given that the public purse subsidises the cost of those drugs and the beneficiaries of that subsidy are the major pharmaceutical companies, the major drug companies, it is entirely appropriate that we exercise that sort of fiscal responsibility. The disallowance motion Senator Puplick has moved is irresponsible. The way he has argued it is misleading. The political act he is perpetrating by putting forward his disallowance motion is a squalid effort at political manoeuvring, and people who are sick and in need of medication have been preyed upon by the fearmongering campaign Senator Puplick has used in developing this disallowance motion. It is a disgusting example of preying upon people who just want to be left alone to get on with their treatment. To prey upon their fears and anxieties is the most squalid and disgusting thing I have seen in this place for a considerable period, and I might say that I have seen a number of those things. Let me return to my first point-that the motion is irresponsible. As I said, it is entirely appropriate for a government to question whether escalating costs can in some reasonable way be curbed. I do not in any sense run away from that. We hear from the Opposition, `Cut this cost. Reduce that cost. Cut here, cut there'. Why then do we not hear from the Opposition that we should exercise a bit of fiscal restraint when it comes to putting money into the pockets of large drug companies? In 1983-84 the pharmaceutical benefits scheme cost government $489m. This year it will cost over $1 billion. If it continues at that escalating level, in another two or three years it will cost in excess of $2 billion. That is a cost to taxpayers in this country. It is therefore entirely appropriate, proper and prudent for a government to say, `Is there some way in which these costs can be cushioned or reduced without affecting the entitlement of patients in need to the drugs they require, if that is the opinion of the medical practitioner?'. Senator Puplick —You could have had $46m extra without your tawdry referendums. Senator Teague —Why not answer the question? You could have had $46m. Senator COOK —That is an irrelevant statement and the honourable senator knows it. When we look at the costs and ask ourselves the question, `Is there some prudent and proper way of doing it without in any way restricting the entitlement of people to that medication?', we find that there is. We use a scheme which has operated for 34 years and has already had some 40-odd drugs listed and we include 53 more. How do we get these drugs onto the scheme? We, as a government, do not choose them. The secretariat of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee puts up a list of some 89 drugs. The technical committee then examines those drugs to see whether, in many cases, there are appropriate cheaper alternatives. It then selects 53 and proposes that they go on to the list. Is Senator Puplick saying that the Committee's technical judgment is improper and that there are no appropriate substitutes? Of course he is not, and if he were saying it he would not have the competence to make the allegation. Why would a government not be mindful of the fact that the business of pharmaceutical companies is to go around to doctors' surgeries and promote their drugs, saying, `Use our drug. Get a free computer'? In one case a pharmaceutical company trying to sell a drug to stop diarrhoea advertised, `Use our drug. Write as many prescriptions as you can for our drug and get a free trip to Seoul for the Olympic Games'. Why would a government which is paying the cost of those drugs not say, `We ought to look at this problem. We ought to see whether there is a cheaper alternative.'? We ought to provide for doctors an alternative line of argument, of interest, of analysis, of concern, so that the advice they get on the drugs they prescribe is appropriate. We do not in any way resile from the fact that we want to make savings to the public purse, which we estimate will be about $17m this year and $42m in a full year. That will be money that does not go to drug companies. That will be money which could be used for tax cuts, to improve the health system generally, to improve our education and welfare standards, or to improve other expenditures from the public purse. We do not resile from a prudent and proper exercise of that type of restraint. I turn to the next aspect-the misleading statements which have come out of this campaign, the big lie approach of saying that all the people out there will be ruined and their access restricted. I have dealt with that in my opening remarks to Senator Puplick. There is absolutely no need for people to go around hoarding, stockpiling or panicking because of this measure. If the drugs are necessary they will be authorised by doctors in the appropriate way and will then be dispensed. In an emergency this can be done by telephone to cut out the red tape. There is proper and adequate cover for emergency situations. In terms of the authorisation, even the cost of the postage stamp is provided free of charge by the Commonwealth. I believe that the turnaround time in doctors getting approval is between 24 and 48 hours. It is not an onerous situation. It does involve some extra work by doctors. If the protest is about the fact that doctors have to write between five and 10 words more two or three times a week on average, it is a terribly pathetic sort of protest, and I will deal with it later. The Government is concerned not only about making the savings, but also about empowering the community to be better consumers of medication, as well as about encouraging doctors and pharmacists to be better able to discharge their responsibilities. As Senator Puplick would know, shortly the Minister will announce a $2m a year campaign, which will be run for the purpose of educating doctors so that when they are pressured in their consulting rooms by drug companies telling them to take their latest product, they are better able to make independent, impartial and objective assessments of the properties of the drugs that are being put to them. Also, pharmacists, who are great providers of advice solicited by consumers of drugs, will be better able to discharge their responsibilities and to offer advice. Further, the consumers of drugs, the pensioner organisations, the heart groups, and all the other organisations which represent people who consume medication, can be advised more professionally, more fully and more adequately about the appropriate and proper ways of operating within the system, of following through on matters pertaining to medication, as well as doing all the other things necessary to ensure that a treatment cures an illness. This proposition involves a two-pronged perspective. First, it is necessary to do the immediate things that are necessary to keep costs under control, so that there is more money in the system to spend usefully and intelligently in other ways on health care. Secondly, we want a longer range program of education which ensures that we do not abuse the system, as has occurred in the past. That is an intelligent response on the part of this Government. Any education of the community in drug use and any education of medical professionals and offer of peer group advice to medical professionals is a useful and proper thing. It is an obligation of a government that is concerned about a proper health care system-and that is what we are doing. I now refer to the third area that I mentioned previously-and by its very nature this is contemptible. People who are ill simply want to be left alone to get on with their treatment. They do not want to hear speeches of the sort made by Senator Puplick this morning, preying on their anxieties and fears, that somehow they will be worse off. I know that it is a stratagem of oppositions to attack governments by inducing the big lie or the big fear campaign. However, let us get the facts right. The central premise is that if doctors prescribe a drug it will be dispensed, whether or not it is on this list. If that is the case, then people will get the medication that they want. Anyone whose fear or anxiety level has been raised due to the sorts of speeches that have been made and the sorts of irresponsible comments that I have seen in the Press can relax, can sit back and pursue their treatment in such a way as to make recovery possible. It is a most base and contemptible manoeuvre to try to use the ill and those in need of medication as some form of political football-as we have seen in this campaign. I now refer to the issue that has been raised about doctors. It has been said that doctors may be required to do some extra work. Indeed, I have a Press clipping here from the Daily Telegraph of 21 July, in which Dr Shepherd of the Australian Medical Association (AMA) is quoted as saying: I have seen it happen on enough occasions for it to concern me. The patient will have to wait for the doctor to find time to fill in the form, and if he has 30 or so patients waiting he is not going to sit down straightaway and do it. We are talking here of a doctor writing on a form, on average, between five and 10 extra words, two or three times a week. That is what we are talking about, but a complaint has been made by the Australian Medical Association that that is too onerous. Indeed, the headline to the article in the Daily Telegraph stated ` ``Lazy'' doctors, skip proper drug scripts'. I am not a doctor basher where doctors conduct themselves appropriately. I am prepared to attack the AMA when it operates on the basis of the sort of comment that Dr Shepherd has made. I want to make one comparison about the attitude of the AMA on this issue. All wage and salary earners in Australia have had wages fixed by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission this year and last year in a way in which they are required to enter into negotiations for productivity improvements in order to get wage increases. At this point we see a claim from the AMA to alter the basis on which fees are charged from a time basis to what it describes as a quality charge basis. This matter is still to be determined. It is a matter to which initially the Government responded in a positive way. But doctors want their wages changed, just like every other wage and salary earner in Australia. The doctors, though, do not have any productivity trade-off. All we are saying is that for writing between five and 10 extra words, on average, two or three times a week they can take advantage of this system. That is a reasonable productivity trade-off, by any stretch of the imagination, and involves much less than other wage and salary earners in Australia would make. In any case, are not doctors-and I believe that they are, because many of them tell me so, and I respect their views-also responsible for the costs of the Australian health system? This is a question not about Medicare but about where we can legitimately save funds for deployment elsewhere in the medical process. Doctors are appropriately concerned about that, and some doctors are prepared to stand up and say so. Indeed, as reported in the Newcastle Herald of 9 August 1988, doctors in the Hunter Medical Association, a doctors group, have said that they reject the call from the AMA for a boycott. So, some doctors are prepared to stand up and resist the blandishments of the AMA in this matter. It is not only those doctors; in a recent press release referring to these matters, the President of the Doctors Reform Society, Dr Judy Edwards, of Western Australia, also supported the Government's position on this matter. Indeed, the press release from the Doctors Reform Society makes interesting copy. It stated: The National President of the Doctors' Reform Society, Dr Judy Edwards, today condemned doctors who are refusing to adhere to new, simple Government regulations on prescribing certain expensive drugs. She cited the case in Albany, Western Australia, where a GP is refusing to use the correct form to prescribe Epilim (a drug for epilepsy) for a 4 year old girl. `This action puts a child at risk, and will cause an unnecessary financial burden on this family' said Dr Edwards. `The AMA's recommendation that doctors refuse to use the authority prescription forms puts politics before patients' Dr Edwards said. `Patients should not be used as pawns in political games' she added. `The Doctors' Reform Society believes that the new Government policy has a sound economic basis.' `It will encourage doctors to think twice about prescribing expensive drugs when a cheaper alternative may be as effective' Dr Edwards said. So, some doctors are prepared to come forward and say that responsibility and concern about the ever-escalating costs of drugs should be properly expressed and properly dealt with. Senator Walters —You can do something about that whenever you want to. Senator COOK —Well, we are doing something about it and the honourable senator is obstructing it; perhaps she will cross the floor and vote with us. However, it is not only doctors who have a right to speak on matters medical. People who are the consumers of medical attention, too, have a perfect right to refer to these matters. On 3 August, the Australian Pensioners Federation came out strongly in support of what the Government is doing, in a press release headed `Doctors gambling with pensioners' health'. In the interests of protecting Australian pensioners, the press release went on to support the Government, to oppose the AMA's call for a boycott, and to argue that, indeed, in some cases doctors are taking actions privately which are prejudicial to the health of pensioners. Indeed, it has been reported to me that recently a doctor in Newcastle signed the form and asked the patient to go down to Sydney and present it to the Department there. That is not necessary. That is a requirement the doctor has put on the patient which I believe is a quite disgusting requirement. It is a requirement which extends well beyond what is, in these circumstances, appropriate and reasonable and it ought properly to be condemned. That is the sort of silly thing we get when a campaign as mindless as this one is launched, when a campaign as silly as this one is proposed by the AMA and, to its eternal condemnation, supported by the Opposition. I think it is appropriate for me to put on the record what in fact the procedures are. The fundamental point, which the Opposition is unable to answer, is the premise Senator Puplick got wrong. What has happened is this: the Government, aware of the ever-escalating costs of pharmaceuticals under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme-costs, as I say, at $1 billion this year, rising on a steep ramp over the next three years to $2 billion-considered that in the interests of proper and judicious use of public expenditure there ought to be a review. The secretariat of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee proposed some 89 drugs for review. That Committee, which is made up of nominees of the AMA, pharmacists and a pharmacologist, made a recommendation that in 53 of the proposed 89 cases some patients could be prescribed alternative drugs which were much cheaper. The drugs we are talking about range in cost from over $1,000 each to $30 each. The sorts of substitutes that in some cases are available as alternatives range in cost between $10 and $20. In those circumstances, the appropriate decision was made. In order to guarantee the access of patients, the Government proposed that a doctor should write on a very simple form that in the particular circumstances of a patient's disease a drug on the list we are proposing is appropriate. If a doctor signs that form and posts it off, at a cost to the Commonwealth and not to himself, within 24 to 48 hours it will be returned approved and will be able to be presented for dispensing. If there is an emergency and it is necessary to deal with things quickly, as sometimes happens, all the doctor has to do is phone through and get approval or, alternatively, ask the patient to take the two cover sheets to the pharmacy, have the prescription dispensed, and obtain approval later. So there will be no delay in the case of emergencies. In the case of routine dispensing there is a minimal delay, which in the circumstances is appropriate. As I have said, between five and 10 extra words have been put on the form. In those circumstances, this sort of disallowance motion should be defeated. The campaign I have talked of is a campaign that should be rejected. The sort of comfort doctors say they want simply because they have to do a little bit of work to save expenditure of millions of dollars from the public purse is contemptible. I want to turn to a number of other things. Senator Puplick asked me whether the Minister for Health in Western Australia, the Hon. Keith Wilson, is a friend of mine. Of course he is. He and I enjoy the privilege of being serving members of parliament, elected by our constituents, in Labor governments. That does not mean that the Hon. Keith Wilson gets it right every time; nor does it mean that I do. At least in my case I am prepared to admit that I am wrong. On this occasion I am right. It is appropriate for me to say that on this occasion the Western Australian Health Minister is wrong. He made a decision to lend his name to the campaign. He obviously had his reasons for doing so, but that does not alter the fact that he is wrong. I do not accept the things he has said. In fact, I positively reject them. The second and maybe concluding point I should make is to pose this question: what do these four people-Jim Carlton, James Porter, Michael Baume and Wilson Tuckey-have in common? All of them are former shadow Ministers for health. All of them opposed Dr Neal Blewett, the Minister for Community Services and Health in this Government, who has held that portfolio consistently for the last five years. All of them had to be shifted because none of them was making inroads in terms of health policy in Australia. Do we have a viable Opposition pressing the Government in regard to health policy? No, we do not. Do we have a cohesive set of policies from the Opposition about where it stands on health? No, we do not. Have we had attempts by the Opposition to fashion alternative health policies? Yes, we have. We had one in the last election campaign. As I recall, Senator Michael Baume, who proposed it, could not quite add up. He got all his sums wrong and therefore the health policy fell down. Senator McKiernan —Now he is on the back bench. Senator COOK —As Senator McKiernan says, he is now on the back bench. He was promoted backwards because he was a failure as an Opposition spokesman. We have had an attempt to get a policy, but the policy recommendations presented at Thredbo were all kicked out. What do we have from the Opposition in terms of alternative health policies? We have four faces who tried to oppose Neal Blewett, all of whom had to be shifted. I would not barrack for Peter Shack for very long because he too may soon have to go. We had a failure to get the facts right during the last election campaign. There is still an inability on the part of the Opposition to bring forward, some 18 months or so into this term, a comprehensive health policy that the Australian people can look at and on which they can make a judgment as to which of the two sides of politics are on the right track. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Opposition is finding it so difficult to bring forward an alternative health policy is that it knows that, while people will criticise Medicare, basically Medicare as a health policy is wholeheartedly supported by most Australians. Like all big systems, there are criticisms of how Medicare operates. This Government is sensitive to those criticisms and seeks to modify and improve as we go along. Let me conclude by saying-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(11.53) —This morning we are discussing whether 53 drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) list should be placed on the general list or the restricted list. The Government is seeking to shift those 53 drugs from the general list to the restricted list and that move has been opposed by the Opposition. We are now debating the motion for disallowance. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Government, not the Opposition, in regard to the disallowance. We concede that the Government, the Opposition and the Democrats are generally in agreement in regard to the data on which the move is based. That is what makes this subject a rather difficult one. I think one should begin by reasserting something Senator Cook has just said. It was distressing for me to hear Senator Puplick again imply something which was not true. I think it bears repeating that these drugs are not being made unavailable. The drugs will still be available although they are being moved from the general list to the restricted list. What is required is that the doctor assert that a particular drug is the most suitable drug for a particular patient. As Senator Cook has indicated, either a telephone call or an extra prescription form will be required for that assertion. As I understand it, the intention of the Government is to bring to the attention of doctors the fact that there are some drugs on the list which are very expensive and to cause them to think twice before they prescribe a more expensive drug. Clearly, the Government wants doctors to prescribe a cheaper drug if it is available. The costs of medical treatment are rising in every area, not least in the area of pharmaceuticals. I alluded to that yesterday when we discussed the report Australian Medical Education and Workforce into the 21st Century. A number of new treatments, which are extremely expensive, are becoming available. I believe that the time has long since past when, as a community, we should be deciding how much we want to spend on very expensive forms of pharmaceutical treatment such as heart transplants and the IVF program. We need to relate those costs to costs elsewhere in the community. How much more benefit does the community get by making more or cheaper places available in kindergartens compared with how much we spend on these very expensive forms of treatment? That is a question which the Government, the Opposition and people in the community do not seem to be addressing seriously. It must be addressed by both the medical profession and the community at large. The present costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, as Senator Cook has indicated, are running at roughly $1 billion-$1,000m-a year. Last year the cost rose by 27 per cent. The average increase over recent years has been about 20 per cent per year. If the Government were minded to come up with a core list of drugs, which Professor Shaw has mentioned-Senator Puplick referred in his speech to Professor Shaw-it might cost about $100m a year. The Government might look at that. Recently, as has been indicated, a number of new drugs for the treatment of hypertension-the so-called ACE inhibitors-have become available. It is clear that they have advantages over various earlier treatments but, in general, they are very expensive drugs. A new drug for the lowering of blood cholesterol has appeared recently-the drug cholestyramine. Senator Peter Baume —Not recently. They were using it 20 years ago, Senator. Senator COULTER —It is estimated that this will cost $336,000 for each fatal and non-fatal heart attack; that is, if one were to use this as a preventative treatment of raised blood cholesterol in an attempt to put off the possible and eventual development of a heart attack. One should look seriously at that cost, bearing in mind that raised blood cholesterol is substantially a self-inflicted condition, aided and abetted by unrestrained tax deductable advertising promoting whatever is profitable and bad for health. Senator Patterson —What about genetic components? Senator COULTER —Certainly genetic components are involved, but there is a substantial component of self-infliction. I do not want to imply in any sense that I am blaming the victim here. Senator Puplick —It is self-inflicted, but I don't blame you! Senator COULTER —As I have indicated, the victim is also a victim of massive advertising by a number of companies which are supported by the honourable Senator's Party. When I attempted to interfere with that promotion process with respect to tobacco, the honourable senator chose to vote with the Government against attempting to inhibit that form of advertising. We must ask how both public and private funds should be spent to achieve the greatest overall benefit. Somewhere in that equation the very large amounts which are being spent on the treatment of one patient must be weighed against the needs elsewhere in the community; that is, in both the medical and non-medical areas. I believe that the Government is attempting to do that. It is appropriate for the Government to attempt to restrain costs, as Senator Cook has indicated, and I think that everybody is agreed on that. The argument appears to be over whether this is the most appropriate way, in the area of pharmaceuticals, to achieve this cost reduction and whether, if this disallowance motion is unsuccessful, it will be effective. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme has grown like Topsy. It has been in existence for some 44 years. In that time the core list of drugs has been added to and other drugs have been abstracted so we now have a hotchpotch list of drugs. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme requires a thorough review. One possible alternative to which I have already alluded is the construction of a core list of essential drugs-something which has been done in other countries-comprising some 150 to 200 drugs, which may cost this country about $100m a year. Of course, that implies that many of these very expensive drugs would be available only if a patient was able to pay or if a safety net was put under patients who were not able to pay. At the moment, the pharmaceutical benefits list contains some 420 drugs. The PBS certainly requires urgent and thorough review. I make the plea now that the Government get on with this, irrespective of whether the disallowance motion is carried. It is true that the Government simply drew a line at $30 across the list of drugs and said that all drugs above that amount would be reviewed and, if possible, put on a restricted list. Criticism has been made of that, but I would strongly contend that that was the appropriate thing for the Government to do. It would have been quite inappropriate for the Government to have interfered in any way with the professional judgment which should guide a doctor with respect to the prescribing of drugs for his or her patients. In view of the Government's intention to simply limit costs, it was very appropriate that the Government look at costs only and not costs in relation to interference with that professional judgment. Senator Puplick also indicated that in 1985 some drugs were shifted from the authority list to the general list and that some of those drugs are being shifted back onto the authority list. Evidence shows that, following that shift, the number of prescriptions for those drugs that were shifted onto the general list from the authority list increased. One can draw only two conclusions from this. One must either impugn the professional integrity of doctors and assume that doctors were prescribing drugs which were inappropriate for their patients or, before the shift, were failing to prescribe drugs which were the most appropriate drugs for their patients, or believe that, after the drugs were shifted from the authority list to the general list, doctors were being lax in their prescription of drugs and were prescribing expensive drugs when cheaper drugs which were available on that list would have served the purpose equally well. I would choose to believe that doctors were not being in any way professionally incompetent or lacking in integrity. I would choose to believe that it was simply laxity on the part of doctors and that, when the drugs came onto the general list, the number of prescriptions went up simply because doctors were not being as careful about the costs of their prescribing habits as they were before. It would follow from that that moving 53 drugs from the general list to the authority list is likely to lead to a reduction in the prescribing of those drugs simply because doctors will become aware of the costs of those drugs-and that is the Government's intention. However, that may not be the case because, as has been indicated, many of these drugs have interesting and peculiar properties which are not shared by some other available drugs. It may be that the prescribing of some of these more expensive drugs may not only not decrease but actually increase for those reasons. So the Government's move may be counterproductive. One could envisage a situation in which, if the number of prescriptions for these 53 drugs did not decrease, or if it increased, the cost of the Government's initiative would increase the cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme rather than decrease it. The same number of or an increased number of prescriptions would be written and, added on to the cost of the prescriptions themselves, one would then have the costs of the bureaucracy which was set up to look after a telephone 24 hours a day seven days a week and to deal with the large amount of paperwork. If that occurs, it will be an even stronger incentive driving the Government to look to better ways of dealing with a thorough review of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which, as I indicated earlier, I believe needs to be carried out. One thing that concerns me greatly in this area is the way in which a number of drug companies very heavily promote the use of drugs. In a free enterprise system this is entirely to be expected. The development of new drugs is an expensive operation in terms of research and development, and a company that comes out with a new and effective drug is very keen to recoup development costs as quickly as possible. But it is not fair to say that that market driven mechanism necessarily serves the best interests of patients, because although new drugs may be marginally more effective, they may well be excessively more expensive than older drugs which may be almost as effective. The older drugs which are no longer under patent, some of which may be extremely cheap, are not likely to be promoted, whereas the very expensive drugs are indeed likely to be promoted. That will totally distort the perception of the efficacy of these drugs by doctors and the prescribing habits of doctors. Having been in general practice, I am well aware of the intense pressure under which doctors come from medical retailers, who strongly promote the benefits of their latest drugs but very rarely speak about the costs if the costs are very high, and very rarely speak about the side effects and the dangers associated with drug treatment. I will give several examples, dealing particularly with the ACE inhibitors which are very much a subject of this debate. Several of the drug companies-notably E. R. Squibb and Sons Pty Ltd on the one hand and Merck Sharp and Dohme on the other-have spent very large sums of money promoting ACE inhibitors to doctors. Squibb, I believe, supplied a computer worth about $1,000 to approximately 1,000 doctors around Australia, provided those doctors put 20 or more patients on that company's brand of ACE inhibitor. Squibb has defended this action by saying that these computers were linked through a modem to a central computer and that through this mechanism doctors were able to enter details of the patients who were put on the ACE inhibitors. Squibb said that information was collated on a central computer and that, through that, it was able to make an assessment of the efficacy of its drug treatment. This, of course, is an entirely fallacious defence. The proper way of conducting a drug trial is through a process called a double blind trial in which patients are arbitrarily-the arbitrariness is the point at issue-allocated to treatment and non-treatment groups and the results of that treatment are independently assessed by somebody who is quite unaware to which treatment group the patient belonged. To believe that one could carry out a successful, reliable and meaningful trial of a drug by selecting patients on the basis that their doctor was prepared to put 20 or more patients on a particular ACE inhibitor because that doctor would then get a computer worth $1,000 is complete nonsense. The value of any study carried out in this way is seriously to be questioned. I believe that Merck Sharp and Dohme provided a dinner at Sheraton hotels to doctors all over Australia and that these hotels were connected through a national television hook-up. Doctors were then exposed to information promoting the use of ACE inhibitors. Clearly, the very high costs of promoting drugs to doctors must be borne somewhere. In this case, if the drugs are on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, costs are borne indirectly by all taxpayers. That is something which needs seriously to be questioned. A little further down the track, a number of drug treatments shortly to be introduced will be even more expensive. The successful genetic engineering company Genentech has developed a drug called TPA which it has already launched on the American market for the treatment of heart attack victims. Each TPA treatment costs $2,200. In the first four months of registration in the United States of America, Genentech notched up TPA sales to the tune of $93m. Approximately 100,000 Australians suffer heart attacks each year. A quarter of them are unaware that they have had an attack, a quarter drop dead, and the remaining 50,000 could be helped by TPA. It does not require very much mathematics to multiply 50,000 by $2,200 per treatment-and these treatments would go on for some months-and to work out that this cost, if borne under the PBS without some restriction, would be quite intolerable. At about the same time that TPA became available, the drug streptokinase was also brought into use in the United States. The latter drug costs only $200 per treatment, and it has been shown to drop the mortality rate from heart attacks, if given within four hours of an attack, by as much as 37 per cent. Interestingly, in a massive double blind study carried out in England, it was shown that half an aspirin tablet a day for five weeks following a heart attack reduced the mortality rate by as much as 21 per cent, reduced the incidence of second heart attacks and cut the incidence of strokes by 30 per cent. The point I want to make is quite simply this: Who today is going to promote the use of aspirin compared with the very expensive alternative drugs when the companies concerned have spent vast amounts of money and hundreds of millions of dollars developing these drugs? I venture to suggest that the drug companies will heavily promote the more expensive treatment and that nobody will promote a drug such as aspirin, which is out of patent, very cheap and not particularly profitable to anybody. It is estimated that Genentech, for instance, invested $220m in the development of TPA, so it has a very strong incentive to continue the promotion of this drug. Interestingly, despite the availability of a cheaper treatment and the lack of any evidence that TPA is better than streptokinase, the prescribing of TPA is outstripping that of streptokinase by 2 : 1 in the United States. So the evidence is clear that this form of promotion can shift prescribing from equally effective but cheaper treatment to much more expensive treatment-roughly 10 times the cost-which is, as I have indicated, no more effective. It is predicted that TPA will become the first $1 billion drug in the United States. Interestingly, already the medicare system in the United States is having serious thoughts about whether the drug TPA should remain on the medicare list. One other factor which has caused great concern about the promotion by drug companies is the way in which they have sought registration of drugs which have serious side effects and long-term consequences associated with them. In some cases companies have been successful in getting those drugs registered. They have promoted those drugs very heavily and have failed to properly inform doctors of the risks associated with the use of those drugs. In my previous laboratory undertaking I did a large amount of work on a whole class of drugs, the so-called five nitro imidazole drugs of which metronidazole, or the common name flagyl, is an example. This drug was first registered by the drug company G. D. Searle and Co. in the United States in 1953. Evidence which eventually came to light indicated that Searle, suppressed a great deal of evidence in relation to the cancer causing potential of that drug. In fact, investigations were made into the studies which Searle carried out. These indicated that a great amount of the animal experimentation work was simply fabricated. Subsequent inquiries have indicated that the practice is not unusual; it is not an isolated example. It is well established that a number of drugs in class are mutagenic, that is, capable of causing increased abortion rates and birth defects. A number of them have been shown to cause cancer and yet these drugs are still widely promoted on the Australian and overseas markets. The indications of these very damaging long term side effects, if mentioned at all, are mentioned in small print somewhere in a very obscure part of the publicity which these drugs get and which is provided to doctors through the heavy promotion which goes on in doctors' surgeries. I have written to the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples, on the matter of the rising costs of drug treatment and indicated several alternative ways in which he might address this problem. I believe it would be useful in the little blue book which doctors use for prescription purposes if drugs were listed, as well as in alphabetical order, according to diagnosis so that doctors would have immediately available to them all the alternative treatments with their costs side by side. If cheaper drugs were available they could be more easily identified and prescribed. I also indicated that I thought it would be useful if the cost of a drug were printed on the bottle when the drug was given to the patient. The reason for this is that there is considerable evidence of misuse of drugs at the patient end. Many patients literally have cupboards full of drugs many of which are often wasted. Some find their way into the hands of children from time to time with quite disastrous consequences. Both doctors and patients would thus be made aware of the cost of drugs by the cost of the prescription being visible on the label on the bottle. I have some concerns with one drug on the list, the drug epilim. Mr Staples has given an undertaking that that particular drug will be looked at. The reasons for that are peculiar to epilim. There are circumstances in which a patient suffering from epilepsy, who has been stabilised on epilim over a long period, allows himself or herself inadvertently to run out of the drug. That person then approaches a doctor who, for whatever reason, refuses to provide this drug on an authority prescription. That patient may then be at risk of having an epileptic seizure which could put that patient's treatment back some time. Although the scenario is an extreme and unlikely one there is a case for putting epilim back on the general list. That suggestion has been made to Mr Staples and I believe it is being looked at. In summary, we will be voting with the Government on this motion, although I have indicated that the area is a difficult one. It is one in which neither approach is entirely satisfactory. We are seeing rapidly escalating costs of medical treatment, only part of which is in the pharmaceutical area. It is something which must be tackled in a much broader way. The pharmaceutical benefits scheme desperately requires a thorough review. It must be carried out in a public way because we are dealing with a very sensitive area-the area of people's health. As a community we must come to a decision about the level of health care we are prepared to support. I emphasise that because in dealing with pharmaceuticals we are really talking about sickness care rather than health care. What level of health care at what cost should we have as a community? I believe that out of such a review we would discover that a great deal more emphasis would be placed on preventive actions by people. The modification of diet would be a far more cost effective way of controlling cholesterol than by using the drug cholestyramine. I am pleased to see that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is putting on The Body Show which promotes positive health through exercise and the cutting down of salt in our diet. I am disturbed to taste the large amount of salt in the food in the parliamentary canteen. I think we should be doing something about that. All these things would be a lot more cost effective than attempting to treat people after they become ill. Given that, and recognising that this move by the Government may not be effective, nonetheless we will be supporting the Government's motion. Senator PATTERSON(Victoria)(12.23) —In this debate we are discussing the Government's decision to add 53 drugs to the list of drugs which require written authority from the relevant State manager of the Commonwealth Department of Community Services and Health before they can be dispensed with the attached Government subsidies. In 1985 the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, announced a number of significant changes to current prescribing restrictions. He said: The changes will give more freedom to doctors to prescribe as they see fit. Seventeen drugs were taken off the authority only list and reclassified as specific purpose drugs. Dr Blewett said that this was a much needed change which would modify the complexity of the approval system and also reduce delays in prescribing which could sometimes adversely affect patients. Six drugs restricted as specified purpose were to have the current restriction removed. Dr Blewett said that the six would be re-listed as unrestricted items, with a saving in administrative time for both doctors and pharmacists. The Minister went on to say that the changes would be of benefit to everybody concerned-patients, doctors and pharmacists-and were in line with the Government's general move towards deregulation. Senator Puplick has pointed out that a number of those drugs that went off the list in 1985 have now reappeared on the hit list in 1988. Why? What has led the Government to this turnaround? There was a cost blow-out in 1986-87 when the Government's contributions to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme increased from $596.6m in 1985-86 to $714.5m. This is not attributable to an increase in the number of prescriptions because in that time the number of prescriptions has decreased from 119.8 million to 102.8 million. As doctors will know-and as many of us who have had experience in the health field will know-the aetiology of a disease is not always unifactorial. It is often multifactorial. The aetiology of the spiralling cost of pharmaceutical benefits services is not unifactorial as the Government would have us believe. It is telling us that it is basically the fault of the doctors, blinded by the glossy advertising, failing to think twice before they prescribe costly drugs. As with many diseases the causes of the spiralling costs are multifactorial. The increased costs of the reduced number of prescriptions in 1986-87 as compared with 1985-86 are due to a number of factors. Not all of these have been discussed in the debate today. In 1986-87 there was an increase in the price of drugs. There was the adverse movement in the exchange rate. We know only too well how that affected not only drug costs but also many other costs. There was the listing of new and more expensive drugs. It has been pointed out to many of us that the pattern of usage of these drugs increases after their introduction and then plateaus out. That has been the history of the use of new drugs for a very long time. There have been changes in prescribing habits so that new expensive drugs replace older ones. I have not seen anywhere in the economies of health an evaluation of the value of these newer drugs as to whether they are more cost-effective in the long run, whether they have fewer side effects and whether, in fact, the reduced number of medications that patients have to take means that we reduce the number of adverse drug interactions and whether we increase patient compliance. Nowhere has the Government argued or told us that the more expensive drugs are, in fact, not cost-beneficial. There are also long term causes of the increase in the cost of pharmaceutical benefits services. I refer to the issues and problems associated with the patent life of drugs. Also, as Senator Coulter pointed out, there is the problem of patient compliance. A report by the Health Economics and Technology Assessment Corporation indicated that a significant proportion of the cost of pharmaceutical benefits services results from wastage by people not complying accurately with the instructions for the drugs prescribed for them. This may be a problem of public health education. It may also be a problem of how pharmacists distribute drugs. There has been an improvement in recent years because pharmacists now instruct patients much more clearly on the use of their drugs. It also may be that medical education is required to ensure that patients are more adequately told about how they should take the drugs. In typical haste, the Government has used a bandaid approach. Mr Staples, in announcing the new pharmaceutical arrangements, said: We are simply prompting doctors to think twice before prescribing expensive drugs where there are possible cheaper alternatives. He said that the Government took full account of the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This advice that the Government sought from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has been criticised on a number of counts. The basis for the inclusion of drugs on the authority list, which was the identification of drugs which cost more than a certain amount per month, did not include an assessment of the efficacy or the cost-effectiveness of the drugs. Also it has been claimed that the decision was made with undue haste. I do not want to rely on the press but in the Age of 8 September Philip McIntosh said in regard to the placing of the 53 drugs on the list: The blame for this must rest largely with the Government. Shortly before the May economic statement, the Health Minister, Dr Blewett, called an extraordinary meeting of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Canberra. Without prior briefing, the nine members of the Committee were met by Dr Blewett and the Finance Minister, Senator Walsh, and were told that the Government had decided to put all PBS drugs costing more than $30 on the Authority list. The Committee was asked to advise if there were any drugs that should be excluded because they did not have a cheaper alternative at least for some patients. In the next few hours the Committee had to apply this test to all 53 drugs. Some of the members now concede that they made mistakes. However, the Committee did not include representatives of every medical specialty, including oncology, and it did not have time to seek wider expert opinion. How true that is I do not know but it makes one wonder how much consultation went on in deciding which of these drugs would go on the hit list. This is a typical Labor knee-jerk response to spiralling pharmaceutical benefits service costs. None of the groups protesting about the drugs is saying that costs should not be contained. Nor is the coalition saying that costs should not be contained. What is being questioned is the Government's preferred treatment of the disease of spiralling PBS costs-the preferred treatment of getting doctors to think twice. What happens if, having thought twice, doctors decide to prescribe the more efficacious drugs on the authority list? If there is no change in doctors' prescribing behaviour, what will be the outcome? There will be a typical Labor Government outcome of increased bureaucratic interference, increased intrusion into patient-doctor relationships and increased administrative costs. Nowhere has the Government costed the economics of its actions. What will be the relative cost of processing each authority to prescribe application versus the average cost of the issue of drugs on the Government hit list? The community, the coalition and the health professions will need to be convinced that the economies are such that they warrant the current action. Some people have estimated that on average it will cost $100 to process each authority to prescribe application compared with an average of $50 per issue of the drugs on the hit list. How many more pharmacists and clerical support staff will be required to process the increased number of authorities? Some have estimated these to be in the realm of 1 1/2 million additional authorities this year. We do not need a quick-fix, bandaid approach. What is needed is a major overhaul of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Currently, we have a one step forward, two steps backward approach. In 1985 some drugs were taken off the authority list. In 1988 some of those drugs were placed back on the authority list. The whole pharmaceutical industry should be reconsidered. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia is quite concerned about the decision to grant an increase in the number of prescriptions available on the basis of one consultation and one visit to a pharmacist. The Government has retracted on some of that. Doctors argued that there would be insufficient monitoring of patients' condition and that there was a likelihood of problems associated with the prescription of, for example, eyedrops when patients could get two drugs dispensed on the one script instead of one. It was argued that both drugs could be opened, thus being subjected to bacterial infection, and also that patients were at risk of toxicity in being provided with both these drugs. The Government has responded to the concern expressed by the medical profession. Some of these drugs which can be prescribed two for the price of one have been taken off the list. Again, it is a typical example of this Government's rushing in to try to solve the immediate economic problem without addressing the long term implications. In supporting this disallowance motion I ask the Government to apply the appropriate treatment rather than applying bandaids to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. How Senator Coulter can vote with the Government on this when he admits that what is really needed is an overhaul of this system, I do not know. What I am asking for is a total review and a major reform of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Ways must be found to contain the cost of drugs, but this short term, quick-fix approach is not necessarily the answer. Senator PETER BAUME —(New South Wales) (12.33)-The Senate is being asked to disallow a Government instrument altering the prescribing status of 53 drugs. The disallowance motion is important. If the Senate were to disallow the instrument, the status quo ante would apply. The Government would then have to go back and re-examine how it wished to achieve its goals. The motion before the Senate addresses a central question of the role of government in subsidising drug treatment in Australia and how governments can control costs. They are legitimate questions. I have no argument with a government that says that it wishes to control costs or thinks it is important to control the cost of drug therapy. However, in this motion we highlight how the present Labor Government has lost its way on this matter; in fact, how it has fallen into the hands of its accountants on an important matter of health, to the possible detriment of the health of Australians. The issue before the Senate is whether the Government acted properly or appropriately in restricting the availability of 53 expensive pharmaceuticals so that they became available only on authority. As other speakers in this debate have said, some of them were drugs that were removed from the authority list just three years ago. The Government is not seeking to make the drugs unavailable. Neither are we asserting that that is the case. It is just to make them more difficult to prescribe as pharmaceutical benefits. For years I wrote authorities for drugs available on authority only. As a practising doctor I did it day in and day out. I understand what is involved in writing these authorities. I do not need to be lectured, as Senator Cook was doing, on what is involved in that. It is no great imposition. I was able to get the drugs and I knew the emergency procedures if the drugs were needed urgently. However, the fact remains that it did provide extra trouble and extra difficulty in my practice. Of course, I am a doctor. I was a doctor in practice and I am proud to be a doctor. I am also proud to say that I am a member of the Australian Medical Association, which has come under some attack today. But the objective of government is to save costs by having fewer of the 53 drugs prescribed. That is the stated goal of government and if it wants fewer of the drugs prescribed we are entitled to ask: How will fewer of them be prescribed and will this be good for Australians? About 10 years ago my brother died of cancer, and before he died he was treated with drugs, with chemotherapy. This chemotherapy was very unpleasant. No-one in his right mind would receive it unless he was suffering an illness such as he was suffering. His hair fell out, he was ill, his blood count was affected, but those drugs probably gave him a remission and some useful life. Is anyone suggesting that those anti-cancer drugs, whose use is so unpleasant for the people who receive them, are being prescribed inappropriately or in an idiosyncratic manner? All those drugs are on the list and will now be available by authority only. There are legitimate questions to ask of this Government. Why, in pursuit of a goal with which we do not disagree, has it chosen this particular method with which we do disagree? If the Government can show that it has acted fairly, effectively, efficiently and properly, it is fair enough that the motion for disallowance be defeated. But unless there is a view that the Government has acted correctly, sympathetically, efficiently, effectively and fairly, the motion for disallowance should be supported. Almost everything about this exercise has been mismanaged by the Government, I suspect because of instructions given through the Department of Finance. It has been mismanaged not least because the Government started from wrong premises. It used a blunt and non-specific approach typical of the Department of Finance. It asked wrong questions and it reached a foolish solution. Let us start by looking at some of the premises from which the Government approached this matter. They are in brief: projected increases in the costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) are caused, to some degree at least, by inappropriate prescribing or by bad prescribing of certain drugs. That is the starting point. If the Government cannot make that case and make it watertight and absolute, it falls before it gets to the first hurdle. The Government's case then asserts that expensive drugs are being used where cheaper drugs would do the job. That has been asserted in those words, as I will mention later, and the Government's case rests on the fact that much of this prescribing is due to fads and fashion rather than to medical need or indication. I do not think I have put the Government's starting premises in any way that is not fair or accurate. But each of those premises is wrong and is certainly not proven or demonstrated. Let us look for a moment at the rising costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. We all know that part of the increase in the costs of subsidised drugs in Australia relates directly to the ageing population of Australia. I say to my colleague, Senator Coulter, himself I think medically trained, that if he is correct and if one goes down the path of lifestyle change and preventive medicine-he is not suggesting people thereby become immortal-one lives only to develop serious illnesses at a later age. In the long run the use of drugs is not going to diminish, it will be the use of drugs for different conditions at an older age, and many of the preventable conditions which cause premature mortality or morbidity will not occur. So we are not against lifestyle approaches, but that is not what this question is about. The ageing of the Australian population, which in fact is due to lifestyle change, which is due to a whole range of environmental improvements, in fact brings about its own call upon the pharmaceutical benefits scheme of this country because old people are sicker. As Australians live longer they will manifest more illness requiring more drug therapy, and that in fact contributes to the cost of the PBS. It is not good enough for the Government to say, `We are worried about the costs of the PBS, therefore we have to cut it back'. It has to be related to the need to be met and to whether that need is being met, and I will make that point later. About half the people in Australia with elevated blood pressure are receiving no treatment at the present time. In fact if the Government wants to improve health in this country there are many people who possibly should start some drug treatment. The Government should understand that an increased use of drugs may represent major advances in medical care in this country and is not something to be criticised. We come back to the ageing population of Australia. We know that old people are sicker, we know that they need treatment, we know that they will need greater subsidy and we know that that on its own explains some of the inevitable increase in the costs of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. We also know that it will continue to represent part of the rising costs while ever the PBS exists in its present form. But this is only part of the reason for the rising costs which seem to have alarmed the Government. It is also true that the average cost of each prescription is rising, and this is what has concerned the accountants in the Government, the bookkeepers, the people from the Department of Finance who could not really care what social effects they produce, provided they can balance the books for government. It is a fact that new and better drugs, superior to their predecessors and with fewer side effects, continue to appear for the benefit of patients. I have not heard that acknowledged today by the Government, but that is a fact central to modern drug therapy. If those new drugs are prescribed appropriately and properly patients will benefit, morbidity will decrease and mortality will fall. So perhaps we should be encouraging the use of some of these new drugs if the social outcomes they can produce are ones that we should be pursuing. That they are being prescribed is not of itself evidence of inappropriate or reckless use. Yet honourable senators will know that the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples, put out a press release that, because certain drugs had gone from one per cent to 1.43 per cent of all prescriptions, that in some way was some evidence of inappropriate use of those substances. It is nothing of the kind. It merely says that more of the drugs are being used. Whether they are being used inappropriately is an entirely separate matter requiring its own proof and its own demonstration. Let us examine the mean and distorted views of some of the Ministers on the nature of the problem. In a speech to a business luncheon in Geelong on 7 July, the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, said that some of the increased costs of the PBS average drug prices could be attributed to new drugs which are medically superior. I ask honourable senators to remember that. But he went on to claim that much of the increased cost was due to doctors prescribing expensive drugs, and I quote the words that appeared in the medical press release, `which have new names but are no more effective than existing generic products'. If that is the crux of the case on which the Government rests, where is the evidence, where is any evidence, where is some evidence that the Minister is correct in what he is saying, that prescribing is idiosyncratic or inappropriate or that new drugs, the ones to which he was referring, are no more effective than existing generic products? It is for the Government to support its case with evidence. There is ample evidence to the contrary, and I will attempt to bring some of that evidence out when the debate resumes a little later. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the Minister aware that there was a drop in the money market rates yesterday after the Caucus chairman told the media that the Prime Minister had expressed a hope that rates would fall `a little bit'? Is the Minister further aware that the Prime Minister's office later denied that Mr Hawke had said any such thing? Given the Minister's own comments yesterday that conditions were in place under which interest rates were expected to fall, a similar view to that put by the Acting Treasurer in the House of Representatives, and in the light of Mr Keating's reported remarks from Berlin that there is a better ambience for interest rates, can the Minister help clarify these somewhat confused messages by giving the Senate some indication of where he thinks rates might go in the foreseeable future? I stress that I am not asking the Minister to come up with any particular figure, but in light of the concern among Australian home buyers, which has increased following the Commonwealth Bank's decision to lift its deposit rates, can the Leader tell the Senate whether it is likely that mortgage rates will rise before Christmas? Senator BUTTON —The answer to the last part of the question is of course no, consistent with everything I have previously said. In regard to the first part of the question let me say that I did see a press report of a reported statement by the Prime Minister-reported at second or third hand, as I understand it-which was subsequently denied, as Senator Chaney pointed out. Senator Chaney —It was your Caucus spokesman who said it. He must have got it wrong. Senator BUTTON —I understand that. It is quite possible that the Caucus spokesman did get it wrong. These things sometimes happen in politics. I certainly saw the statement of denial of any comment about interest rates by the Prime Minister, which followed the rumour to which I just referred. Yesterday, in answer to a question about longer term projections in relation to interest rates, I referred-in answer to a somewhat confused question which referred to exchange rates rather than interest rates in the beginning-to the circumstances which might be described in the Treasurer's phrase `a better ambience for interest rates'. That reference that I was making was to the Budget Speech of this year, which at page 47 referred to the ongoing policy environment in which interest rates will be considered by those responsible for fixing them. I do not need to quote that in full. It is part of a section in which the Treasurer refers to inflation as being the main concern of the Government, but it also refers to the environments for interest rates. I repeat that which I said yesterday. The Government believes that in the medium to long term there is a better environment for interest rates. However, I must say that that question will be affected by external factors as well as internal factors. I make the point that all major countries are currently concerned about renewed inflationary pressure, and interest rates have in fact risen in several major countries. As far as the Government is concerned, it was said in the Budget context that monetary policy must continue to be set with an eye to achieving a suitable balance between the impact on the exchange rate and competitiveness, and the need to contain cost pressures which also damage competitiveness. The last part of the question related particularly to housing interest rates and I suppose that arose from some tribal loyalty to Senator Chaney's Victorian colleagues, which few Liberal politicians in Victoria have. Senator Chaney —Probably a few home owners throughout Australia are interested. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I concede that. I am asked to comment as to whether rates may go up. Again, I cannot confirm or deny that. I am not going to make any predictions about that. As Senator Chaney knows, there is a certain section of housing interest rates which remains fixed. Apart from that, the interest rate question in respect of housing is very much a matter which the market will attend to. I must make the point that recent figures suggest that a lot of the pressure has gone out of the housing market in the last month or so. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has confirmed and explained and given justification for his comments yesterday that conditions were in place under which interest rates were expected to fall. When he got to housing interest rates he became rather more uncertain. I ask the Minister: Is he saying that, with respect to housing interest rates, conditions are in place under which interest rates are expected to fall or is there very considerable doubt about that and may interest rates in fact rise, given that the Commonwealth Bank, for example, has decided to lift its deposit rates? Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney knows that the question of housing interest rates is not unrelated to other interest rates and I would have thought it was implicit in what I said that the environment which we believe is there for medium to long term improvement in interest rates will affect housing rates as well as other rates. It is very difficult to comment or in any way make predictions, even if one wants to or is prepared to, in relation to minor fluctuations up and down in housing interest rates. I am not going to do that. Senator DEVEREUX —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. It relates to the application by Huon Forest Products Pty Ltd for an export woodchip licence for its proposed mill at Whale Point on the Huon River south of Hobart. Is it true that the Huon River would need to be deepened and widened to accommodate the large woodchip ships which would need access to the Whale Point area? If so, what research has been done to assess the environmental damage that would occur as a result of this action? What would be the environmental effects on the Huon River's ecosystem from the discharge of ballast containing foreign organisms from vessels? Given that recently Atlantic salmon farms have been established in the area at vast expense, what effect would ballast water, oil and rubbish from woodchip ships have on the vital need of these farms for a clean, stable tidal flow of fresh water? As the current Liberal Tasmanian Government has a poor record in environmental matters, will the Minister assure the Senate that all environmental concerns associated with this mill proposal will be thoroughly examined prior to any consideration of an application for an export woodchip licence for Huon Forest Products? Senator COOK —I thank Senator Devereux for his question. There is no doubt that the issue of Tasmanian forests is a matter that all Tasmanian senators-indeed, all senators and members in this Parliament-should be concerned about. The question is in several parts. Let me approach an answer by saying first of all that I have a deep concern in sorting through the issues associated with the granting of a woodchip licence for Huon Forest Products and all the environmental issues that the honourable senator has raised. As recently as the 13th of this month I spent a day in the Huon Valley. That day I had an opportunity to consult with representatives of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd, which operates a pulp mill in the vicinity of the Huon Valley, and with Huon Forest Products itself-the consortium that is proposing the development referred to in the question-on their views and expectations of how that development could be carried on. I took the opportunity as well to speak to representatives of the Esperance and Huonville municipalities and obtained from the elected local government representatives a view-I might say, couched in fairly pithy terms-as to their attitude to the development of the mill. In the course of that day I also spent some time with the Huon support group and discussed its concerns. I discussed the concerns of a local sawmiller with the representatives of east coast log hauliers, who have some worries about the impact such a development might have on their industry, with the Tasmanian Woodcraft Guild and, later the next morning, with the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council. Senator Boswell —You had a full day. Senator COOK —I had a very full day, that is true. I should also point out to the Senate that I have previously discussed the matter with the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray, and the Tasmanian Minister for Forests, Ray Groom. That was a fairly exhaustive round of consultations but I did it because the Commonwealth is concerned to discharge fully its obligations on a sensitive and controversial matter such as this. As Senator Devereux would know, we have endorsed in principle the go-ahead for the Huon Forest Products development, subject to, in my portfolio, two major considerations. The first is that there is sufficient resource in the catchment area this development would serve to enable it to proceed. As Senator Devereux would know, Australian Paper Manufacturers has a mill there, and the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania are close to concluding their consideration of the Helsham report and, hopefully, reaching an agreement on it. There is a major mill development in the north of the State by Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Thus the resource impacts of a new development have to be properly weighted. We are working with the State at Commonwealth level to make an assessment of whether the wood supply is sufficient to enable such a project to proceed. The second consideration is that there be adequate and full community consultation. That is why I engaged in that exhaustive round of consultations. I do not rule off the page and say that they are now complete. If any Tasmanians or interest groups in Tasmania wish to put further views to me about those developments they should feel free to do so and I would welcome them. Senator Devereux's question was about the environmental impacts of such a development. I do not take it unto my responsibility-indeed, it is explicitly not my responsibility-to make those decisions. Senator Richardson, my colleague, is best equipped to do that. I take advice from him on those matters and am guided by his judgments. I am mindful of the fact that Senator Richardson has said that he will not become involved in the issue of the wood resource for the mill and whether that is adequate to meet the demands of this project. With respect to the environmental issues about siting, location and all the other aspects of that development, he has said that he will be guided by the Tasmanian Government's environmental checks, which I understand are well advanced, subject to several considerations he has about the way in which those checks are carried out. At this point I am unable to answer specifically the particular questions Senator Devereux has raised. When I obtain advice from the Tasmanian Government and from Senator Richardson about the environmental assessments they are undertaking, I will be better equipped to reply in detail. Senator STONE —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer the Minister to the answer he gave to my question yesterday, when he refused to confirm the Treasurer's Budget forecast of a $9.5 billion balance of payments deficit for the current financial year. In the light of this morning's release of the August-and revised July-balance of payments figures showing a total deficit of over $2.9 billion for those two months, will the Minister now agree that the Treasurer's balance of payments forecast is history? Will the Minister also acknowledge that the balance of payments blow-out has happened before there was any appreciable softening in our export commodity prices such as has appeared over recent weeks? Without asking the Minister to speculate upon the future of interest rates-unlike his colleague the Acting Treasurer yesterday in the other place-will he now also acknowledge that the need to finance in 1988-89 a much higher balance of payments deficit than originally contemplated is bound to mean higher domestic interest rates in order to attract the necessary capital from overseas to do so? Finally, given these developments, will the Minister convey to his colleague the Treasurer the view that his own economic management performance would not seem to be an appropriate basis from which to be delivering patronising lectures on that topic to such countries as the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, as he has been doing recently? Senator WALSH —My first comment is that that question was undoubtedly written by Senator Stone himself and not by some Murdoch ghost. For a start, I cannot think off the top of my head of any Murdoch journalist, with one exception, who would know enough to put together a question like that. But that is not the telling factor. The telling factor is that it is so similar to the questions Senator Stone asked so many times in September and October of last year. It certainly has a sense of deja vu about it. We have heard it all before. From I think Budget night onwards Senator Stone was forecasting a blow-out in the current account deficit forecast for the last financial year. His prophecies of gloom were intensified with the stock market crash. In the end, all of Senator Stone's worst fears turned out to be groundless. He has a long history of being a Jeremiah. Having said all that, the current account deficit figure for August is a little higher than most people would have expected. Senator Boswell —How much higher? Senator WALSH —This morning I heard, for what it is worth, that anonymous people in the money market in Sydney expected a maximum figure of $1.3 billion and it was a bit more than that. I do not know how good their judgment is. Let me make a few other points. First, there is a well established seasonal pattern in the current account deficit; that is, in the first half of the financial year it is higher than in the second half. The figure for August was higher than many people would have expected. However, the figure for July was revised downwards, as was the figure for the last financial year in the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin. Secondly, in addition to the seasonality factor, it is not unprecedented-indeed, it is not unusual-to have two consecutive months where a current account figure is abnormally high for the financial year in which that occurs. If I remember correctly, the months of September and October of last year were such months. The fact that there were two consecutive months where the current account deficit was substantially above either the trend or the monthly average for the whole financial year set Senator Stone off and running last year with exactly the same sort of question he has now asked. He asserted that I refused to confirm the Budget forecast for the financial year current account deficit. That is not true. I did not refuse to confirm it. Any forecast or estimate is of course just that-a forecast or an estimate. Nobody can be certain that it is dead right, too low or too high. One can be certain only that it will not be precisely right. One cannot with any confidence or responsibility, however, assert anything else. On the basis of two months' figures, it would be premature to make a judgment that there was any significant error in that forecast. For all of those reasons, the other questions Senator Stone asked, based on the false assumptions and assertions in his question, are not relevant. Senator STONE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Cutting through all the verbiage of the Minister's response, and getting to the heart of the matter, the Minister seems to be saying that he is not prepared to confirm the present forecast of the balance of payments-but he is not prepared to deny it, either. Is the Minister therefore saying that he thinks the forecast remains a good forecast? In the light of the fact that we have already achieved-if that is the right word-a $2.9 billion deficit in the first two months of the year, should not the Minister at least open his mind to the possibility that the balance of payments might in fact blow out to a deficit appreciably higher than the $9.5 billion as laid down in the Budget Papers? Senator WALSH —With every Budget forecast there is always the possibility that it can be wrong. Of course that possibility always exists. Indeed, most of last year's Budget forecasts were wrong. Some inaccuracies in estimating or forecasting were cancelled out by other errors or inaccuracies made in estimating. Senator Robert Ray —We don't doctor them up like those opposite do. Senator WALSH —Exactly, Senator Ray. What we do not do and what we have never done is cook the Budget figures, the way Opposition members used to do when they were in government. One remembers the rubbery figures, the crook figures that were written into a Budget. This was when Senator Stone was either the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, and so he would know all about it. They were crook figures written into a Fraser Government Budget because there was to be an election in a couple of months' time, and those opposite decided not to tell the people the truth, just as the discredited former Treasurer decided not to tell the people the truth at the end of February 1983, when Senator Stone sent him a letter saying that the forecast Budget deficit was going to blow out wildly for the 1982-83 financial year and that the prospective Budget deficit for the next financial year was not $5 billion-which was the figure that the discredited former Treasurer was feeding to the public-but about $10 billion. Mr Howard decided then that he would not let the public in on that, either. We make honest estimates in Budget figures, and we always have since we have been in government. Senator Stone —But wrong. Senator WALSH —Of course; they are nearly always wrong. Senator Stone knows enough to know that it can be no other way, that one cannot estimate with a greater degree of precision. I see no reason for criticising the forecast for the current account deficit, for gross domestic product growth, employment growth, inflation, or indeed expenditure items, which are much more predictable than those other broader aggregates. Even the estimates for expenditure items sometimes involve a significant degree of error in them. Indeed, for every year that we have been in government, bar one, the Budget estimate of expenditure has been significantly higher than the actual Budget outcome. Senator Archer —Seven minutes-come on. Senator WALSH —Well, Senator Stone has asked a supplementary question. Of course, no sensible person would guarantee that any Budget forecast was correct. I repeat: on the basis of two months' figures, there is no reason to change the expectations about the current account outcome for this financial year-when there are so many precedents in the past where the figures for two consecutive months have been highly misleading, both as to the underlying trends and as to the monthly average for the entire financial year. Senator COLLINS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. On a recent visit to the Northern Territory, the shadow Minister for Defence, the honourable member for McPherson-and may he never return to the Northern Territory-stated on behalf of the Opposition that he was opposed to the re-location of the Sixteenth Cavalry Regiment in the Northern Territory. That provoked his colleague the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory to make the statement that he was one of the reasons why the Federal Opposition will stay in opposition-and hear, hear! Can the Minister advise the Senate what the Government's intention is with the re-location of the Sixteenth Cavalry Regiment to the Northern Territory? Senator ROBERT RAY —I was a little surprised when I heard reports of the statement made by Mr White when he was in the Northern Territory. The Government has given the highest priority to providing defence for all of Australia and for all Australians. To this end, we have decided to move major units of all elements of the Australian Defence Force to Australia's north and west. An essential element of this program is our decision to move Cavalry Regiment to Darwin. The implementation of that decision is now well under way. When that is achieved, in the early 1990s, we plan to follow with an entire brigade. These decisions reflect our determination to develop a Defence Force which is trained, equipped and located to defend Australia. This can be done only by locating our forces where they would most likely have to fight-in the north. I find it somewhat surprising that the honourable member for McPherson has opposed that strategy. I am not surprised that his colleagues in the Northern Territory reacted in the way that they did. Senator Lewis —On a point of order, Mr President: Senator Collins asked about the Sixteenth Cavalry Regiment. The Minister is referring to 2 Cavalry Regiment. I do not think the Minister's answer is relevant to the question, and I suggest that the Minister not be allowed to continue to answer the question. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator ROBERT RAY —It is good to see the cavalry come to the rescue of the Indians, Mr President! In conclusion, I say that what Mr White's views reflect is the failure of Opposition members to know where it is going with defence. I acknowledge that their heart is probably in the right place and that in fact their intentions are good; but they lack two essential qualities in this regard. First, they lack a strategy. Secondly, they are not able to detail what they would do in the defence area, given the other requirements placed on them by their policy to cut government expenditure. However, with defence, which is one of the biggest Budget items, they struggle on to say how they will maintain investment in the defence area. However, this is not particularly new and it does not apply just in the defence area. I think-and I would have to agree with Senator Collins-that, in the recent re-shuffle of the Opposition front bench, the honourable member for McPherson was a very lucky person to survive. Senator MACKLIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I refer the Minister to the recent speech made by General Secretary Gorbachev in which he offered to close the Soviet base at Cam Ranh Bay if the United States closed its major Philippines bases, and he pledged further the continuation of a Soviet freeze on the deployment of naval nuclear weapons in the Asia-Pacific region. I ask the Minister: What is the Government's view of the Soviet proposition? Does it believe that the Soviet freeze is genuine? If so, does it mean that the Soviet SS-N-21 sea-launched nuclear cruise missile is not being deployed? Will the Government seek a commensurate act of restraint from the United States if it does believe that the freeze is genuine, namely, to halt the current deployment of the Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile? Finally, will the Government endorse the likely United States line of refusing to trade its Philippines bases for Cam Ranh Bay? Senator GARETH EVANS —While largely devoted to domestic concerns, Mr Gorbachev's speech in Krasnoyarsk on 16 September, to which Senator Macklin has referred, did contain quite a wide range of proposals, as the honourable senator says, concerning security and arms control in the Asia-Pacific region. It must be said that the proposals, despite their different and enthusiastic manner of presentation, are largely a re-working of Mr Gorbachev's speech in Vladivostok a couple of years ago, portraying, as that speech and the most recent one do, the Soviet Union as a constructive power in the region and seeking to reduce the United States presence and influence. We welcome constructive Soviet involvement in the region and we are studying the speech closely. I will perhaps be able to give a more detailed response to some of Senator Macklin's questions when this process is further down the track. However, our preliminary assessment is that there are few new elements in the proposals and, to the extent that there are new elements which have attracted public attention, and in particular the offer to close Cam Ranh Bay in return for closure of American facilities in the Philippines, such proposals, and the Philippines one in particular, have a large element of unacceptable asymmetry in them, and, as such, could not be accepted at face value. Generally speaking, we will continue to judge the Soviet Union on the basis of actions rather than words. That is not to say that there are not some constructive things in the speech that are worthy of close study-and the speech is getting it. Senator HARRADINE —I draw the attention of the Minister for Justice to an article in the Australian Institute of Criminology newsletter Trends and Issues No. 9 of December last year by Dr Paul Wilson and Stephen Nugent on the research and policy implications of sexually explicit and violent media material. I draw the Minister's attention to the reference in that paper to the United States Attorney-General's Commission on Pornography, which found harmful effects of video pornography of the type found in X-rated material in this country. I draw attention to the following statement by Dr Wilson in that document: It is important to note that there have been suggestions of alleged political bias in the formation and determination of the Meese Commission. Nobile and Nadler believe that the Commission's verdict was a forgone conclusion due to its leading terms of reference and its conservative membership. Is it a fact that Philip Nobile is the Editorial Director of Penthouse Forum in the United States of America and that Eric Nadler is its senior editorial director? Is it not strange in an academic article such as this from the Institute of Criminology that reliance should be had on the chief propagandists for the video pornography industry in the United States to undermine the findings of the United States Commission? Will the Minister draw the attention of the Institute of Criminology to this apparent lapse on the part of Dr Wilson and Mr Nugent? Senator TATE —I have had my attention drawn to the publication in the Trends and Issues series which dealt with the matters that Senator Harradine has outlined. It is a fact that the author of that short paper on sexually explicit and violent video material, research and policy implications, mentioned Nobile and Nadler. As I understand it, the citation method used in that Trends and Issues paper was in accordance with normal practice. It is not normal practice in academic publications to cite the political or personal characteristics or allegiance of authors. The fact is that the citation which was used in that Trends and Issues paper was, as I say, in accordance with normal academic processes. I do not think Dr Wilson or his co-author can be criticised from a professional point of view for the methodology that was used. On the other hand, I think it would have been perhaps more useful if the authors had cited other commentators on the Meese Commission report, of whom there were many, who themselves pointed out the methodological and other weaknesses of that report. For example, virtually the whole of the American Bar Foundation research journal Fall 1987 No. 4 is devoted to a critique of the Meese Commission with some very senior and respected commentators contributing articles to that issue. In other words, I do not believe that the citation practice adopted in this Trends and Issues publication departed from normal and accepted practice. As I say, it could well have been that more trenchant and more authoritative commentators could have been found to balance the conclusions of the Meese Commission which, as I recall, were outlined in the Trends and Issues report. Senator BOSWELL —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I refer the Minister to the present land sale fiasco in Bundaberg, where a former rifle range of 216 hectares and 7,000 square metres of land within the proposed strategic plan of Bundaberg was sold only two months ago for $270,000 to the Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club and then resold within 24 hours to Eskrose Pty Ltd for the sum of $390,000? Is the Minister aware that because this land is due to be gazetted industrial its value has been estimated at close to $4m? In view of the fact that Senator Robert Ray wrote to the honourable member for Hinkler, Mr Courtice, and informed him that this land had been valued by the Australian Valuation Office, can the Minister explain to the Senate why he allowed government assets worth an estimated $4m to be sold for $270,000, involving a loss to taxpayers of more than $3.5m? Will the Minister table the valuation made by the Australian Valuation Office? Also, will he initiate an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this sale? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am not sure that I will be able to answer in sufficient detail all aspects of Senator Boswell's question. Senator Boswell —You asked for a valuation. Senator ROBERT RAY —I know that the honourable senator is a bit excited and that this is his first question as a member of the shadow Ministry. I am really trying to assist. What I am saying to Senator Boswell is that this is a fairly complex question and I will have to seek further information on some parts of it. Information that I have available to me now suggests that the Bundaberg rifle range became surplus to Commonwealth requirements in 1983. Consistent with a then standing Government policy, the rifle clubs in occupation were offered first option to purchase the property at Commonwealth valuation. Financial and legal difficulties delayed the proceedings for some years. The most recent valuation, made in late 1987, was based on advice from the local council on the likely future zoning that would apply to the property and on other market evidence relevant to the disposal of the property. The Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club accepted the offer and settlement occurred on 11 July this year. I am advised that the club immediately sold the property to another buyer at a profit. I understand that the intention of the club is to relocate to a cheaper property. These events are of considerable concern to me, especially because the Commonwealth set out to assist the rifle club to continue shooting at the property. In this regard, I am advised that under Queensland law it is not possible to place covenants on land at the time of sale to restrict the way land is used by future owners. I interpose to say that I think Senator Boswell understands the reasons why that exists in Queensland. The Department of the Minister for Administrative Services has prepared a report on this matter. Mr West is considering this report to determine whether further administrative action should be taken on this issue. As to the honourable senator's request for tabling this and that, I will pass it on to the Minister for Administrative Services and seek an early response. Senator BOSWELL —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister is quoted in today's Bundaberg News Mail as saying that he sought a valuation from the Australian Valuation Office. Could he confirm that as Acting Minister he personally sought the valuation from the Australian Valuation Office? Will he confirm that he did in actual fact ask for that valuation? Senator ROBERT RAY —I have not had the pleasure of reading the Bundaberg newspaper yet so I can neither confirm nor deny what is in the newspaper. Again, I will seek some further information on that and get back to the honourable senator. Senator VALLENTINE —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of the accident in Cairns on 5 September involving the nuclear-armed guided missile destroyer, USS Berkeley, and the Australian vessel, Coralita, which received about $100,000 worth of damage as a result of the collision, which the United States Navy has to date refused to acknowledge? Given that the dive boat charter company, Barrier Reef Cruises, is now facing collapse as a result of the damage done, the boat having been laid up for three weeks and a further five weeks of repairs being needed, I ask the Minister: Who is responsible for compensation to the owner of the vessel? In light of the fact that the Department of Defence has denied responsibility and neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition has replied to a letter from the company director, and knowing that if he sought compensation from the United States Government the case would have to be heard under American law, which could take up to three years, I ask: What steps will the Government take to prevent Barrier Reef Cruises going to the wall? I further ask why the Minister for Defence made such a ridiculous assertion on the 7.30 Report on Monday night as that there will be no accidents involving warships that carry nuclear weapons, when one such accident, although not directly affecting the nuclear weapons, has occurred so recently in an Australian port. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am aware of an incident in Cairns on 5 September in which the USS Berkeley came into contact with the Coralita while berthing. Consistent with normal practice, responsibility for compensation for damage caused lies with the party responsible. As this claim arose out of navigation of a vessel, arrangements under the Status of Forces Agreement with the United States, whereby the Australian Government may settle claims on behalf of the United States Government, are not applicable. I understand that both the owner of the vessel and his insurer have been in contact with the United States authorities about the claim and I am advised that the United States authorities are currently awaiting material in support of the claim. I understand that when this material is available the United States authorities will be prepared to negotiate about the settlement of the claim, consistent with the usual principles. In answering this question, I make no assumption as to some of the material contained in Senator Vallentine's question to the effect that the vessel was a nuclear-armed destroyer. Consistent with usual practice, the United States authorities will neither confirm nor deny that the USS Berkeley carries nuclear weapons. There will be no need to litigate the compensation claim if a negotiated settlement can be arranged. The Prime Minister's office will be replying shortly to a communication from the owner of the Coralita. In answer to the last part of the question, let me clarify what the Minister said on the 7.30 Report-not what Senator Vallentine claims he said. He said: There will be no accidents, none; no accidents that involve a discharge of nuclear weapons or a problem with the reactors. That is what the Minister said according to the transcript of the 7.30 Report. Maybe Senator Vallentine blinked and missed that part, but I would have thought that that part was entirely clear. It is preposterous to suggest that no nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ship-I am neither confirming nor denying, as I have no knowledge in this case and, if I did, I would not say anything on it-is ever involved in an accident per se. However, Minister Beazley's remarks on the 7.30 Report were very precise and clear and I think Senator Vallentine should have understood that. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer to evidence given by Mr Greenwood, the Director of the Special Investigations Unit, to the Senate standing committee investigating some aspects of the War Crimes Amendment Bill which is scheduled for early debate in the Senate this session. Mr Greenwood's evidence indicated that at the time, which I think was early this year-probably January-he had more than 200 active files under consideration by this unit on, presumably, alleged war criminals in Australia. I ask the Minister: What is the present number of active files held by Mr Greenwood's office, and has the Government received any estimate of the number of prosecutions which are likely to be launched if the legislation is passed? Senator TATE —I will make inquiries of the Special Investigations Unit headed by Mr Greenwood as to the present number of active files. Senator Durack asked, in the second part of his question, whether the Government has received any estimates of the number of prosecutions. I do not believe that any estimate has been forwarded to the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). I will make inquiries; but, as I understand it, the number of prosecutions that might be launched would be a matter for the DPP. Senator Hill —Have any files been forwarded? Senator TATE —I do not know. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister obtain the information for the Senate before the Bill is debated? Senator TATE —As to the first question, I will certainly be able to achieve that. As to the second, I do not want to leave the Senate with any assumption that all I have to do is find out the numbers. I do not know that any such estimate has been forwarded to the Government. Senator COLSTON —Has the Minister for Finance seen a newspaper report that photocopies were tabled recently in the Queensland Parliament showing that Queensland Department of Health cheques were made out in favour of three National Party branches in Queensland? Can the Minister advise whether Federal funds are made available to the Queensland Government for use in that State's Health Department? If so, is the Queensland Government's auditor required to certify to the Commonwealth that the funds have been used in the manner for which they were intended? If funds supplied by the Commonwealth are directed by the Queensland Government to National Party branches, would the Commonwealth be able to take any action to recover those funds from the Queensland Government? Senator WALSH —I have seen a copy of a news report in the Courier-Mail late last month which reported that cheques drawn from the Queensland Health Department accounts were made out to the Townsville branch of the National Party for $100 and $25; to the Mansfield National Party branch for $30; and to the Queensland Health Minister's own National Party branch of Greenslopes for $39. Senator Button —The shadow Minister for regional development is not even here. Senator WALSH —What a pity. `Regional development' is a euphemism for pork- barrelling, I presume; so it is a double pity that he is not here. Apparently, these payments were made as either donations or entrance charges for a number of National Party dinners and other functions for which Mrs Harvey, the Queensland Minister for Health, was asked to put her hand into her pocket and pay, but she put her hand in the taxpayers' pocket instead. There are many precedents, of course-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: that statement is unparliamentary. It reflects on a member of another parliament and should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw the statement. Senator WALSH —Very well. If Senator Chaney finds it offensive, I withdraw it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mrs Harvey drew cheques on the taxpayers for social functions. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I rise on a further point of order. My further point of order is that it is not for the Minister to categorise the basis of my objection. My objection is that his statement is in breach of Standing Orders. Also, I ask him to withdraw his comment about me. I find that objectionable. Senator WALSH —I did not make a comment about you. You must be thin skinned. Senator Chaney —You did, about the basis on which I took the point of order. I made it quite clear to the President that-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator WALSH —I withdraw. Mrs Harvey made out cheques to the National Party to cover her entrance fees to Queensland National Party functions and the cheques were drawn on taxpayers. That was not the first time the Queensland Government got National Party money mixed up with Government money. Senator Colston is quite correct: very substantial Federal funds are made available to the Queensland Government for the purpose of delivering health services and it certainly is not intended that those funds should finish up in assorted branches of the Queensland National Party. However, financial assistance grants to the States into which, under the present arrangements, most Commonwealth health payments are rolled wind up in Consolidated Revenue, along with the Queensland Government's own revenues. In that situation, it is not possible to unscramble the funds and to assert with absolute certainty that the cheques that Mrs Harvey made out, drawn on the Queensland Government's account, were ultimately funded by Queensland taxpayers or by Commonwealth taxpayers. One thing we are quite certain about is that some taxpayers paid, unknowingly and without consent, Mrs Harvey's entrance fees to various National Party functions in Queensland. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications. Why is the Government planning to waste several million dollars on temporary improvements at Brisbane's international airport terminal while promising a new facility in five years time, when private developers are prepared to build a terminal and hotel which could be operational within two years? Is the Minister aware that Brisbane cannot wait five years for a new terminal, considering that in June 1991 the city will be hosting the Lions Clubs International convention and, according to statistics provided by previous host cities, the six airport gates currently available at our existing international terminal could not possibly pro- cess the 45,000 delegates expected to arrive at and depart from Brisbane Airport? In 1987, for example, Taipei International Airport, with 22 gates, had great difficulty in coping with 35,000 delegates. Can something be done to ensure that a new terminal is constructed and operational by June 1991? Senator GARETH EVANS —The timing and financing of the development of facilities at Brisbane Airport is a matter for the Federal Airports Corporation (FAC) rather than the Government. It has made an independent commercial judgment about these matters, and we pretty well have to accept that at face value. My brief tells me that an investigation has now been completed by the FAC into the requirements for maintaining the existing international terminal for a planned period, as Senator Bjelke-Petersen says, of up to five years and that the Board has now approved the expenditure of $4.8m for these works to be undertaken. I have to say that my own inclination was to investigate the possible use of the centre of the new domestic terminal for international purposes. That, as we all know, is a splendid edifice, arguably splendid enough to take us into about the twenty-second century, quite apart from the immediate needs for the period ahead. I am told in this brief, however, much to my disappointment, that the consideration that has been given to the possible use of the centre of the new domestic terminal suggests that it would be financially prohibitive to utilise that centre span and to make the appropriate further alterations to it. Moreover, I am told, the area will be required in 1990 to accommodate new entrants in the domestic market. Senator Hill —Ha, ha! You have been conned again. Senator GARETH EVANS —That may be so. Certainly, I am not surprised that there is a prohibitive expense involved-- Senator Chaney —We have an outbreak of optimism in the Senate. Senator GARETH EVANS —I am sure that there will be new entrants in the market. I have no doubt about that, but I would have thought that there was enough space around the other existing fingers of the Brisbane terminal to accommodate about 43 new entrants for another 75 years. But since, mercifully, I have no further responsibility for such matters, my own judgments, for what they are worth, do not count for a row of beans. I am told, finally, that the Corporation is looking at alternatives for a new development and will be consulting with all interested parties. So I say to the honourable senator that one never knows one's luck. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the answer given by the Minister, for which I thank him very much, I wonder whether the Government, in thinking of other alternatives, has looked at the suggestion that I put forward in my question about private developers being prepared to build a terminal and hotel which could be operational within two years. Senator GARETH EVANS —As I said in the last sentence of my reply, I am told that the FAC is looking at alternatives for a new development. It will certainly be consulting with all interested parties, no doubt including potential private sector tenderers. Senator COONEY —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources. I refer him to an article in today's Business Age, which I will hand to him, headed `Esso-BHP to spend $85m developing two new Bass oilfields'. There is a map next to that headed `Tapping new fields', showing the two fields, Dolphin and Perch, which are situated, it seems, off the Victorian coast near Sale. I ask: What significance does the Government attach to that development in terms of both its resources and its economic strategies? Senator COOK —I thank Senator Cooney for giving me a copy of the Business Age of today's date. That is a newspaper I have not read, but I am aware of the announcement by Esso-BHP-- Senator Cooney —I want it back. Senator COOK —I will give it back later, if I may. I might need it for this answer. I am aware of Esso-BHP's announcement of the total expenditure of $550m on the development of the Dolphin and Perch fields for further oil production in what we call the Gippsland Basin but which is commonly known as Bass Strait. This $550m development will create about 600 new jobs, most of which will be located in the Sale or Barry Beach area in Victoria and will thus be a tremendous boost to industries in that area from a geographical and economical point of view. I think it is a mark of confidence by Esso-BHP in both the Commonwealth and the Victorian governments that it has chosen this week to announce the go-ahead for such a massive development as this. It is a mark of confidence in the Commonwealth in that one of the controversial issues in the area of oil production in Australia is whether we have our tax regime right. It would suggest that we have, and, indeed, the reduction in corporate taxation announced by the Treasurer recently may have been the spur to have encouraged Esso-BHP to move as confidently as it has in this area. It is also significant, given that at present the benchmark crudes are trading in a band of between $12.50 a barrel and $14.50 a barrel, with pundits suggesting that they might fall to even $10 a barrel. West Texas intermediate, Brent and Kuwait light, the three benchmarks, are in that band at the moment. Thus with the end of the Iran-Iraq war and the forecast being that oil prices will fall even further, for the Australian Esso-BHP venture to proceed to announce such a major development is a quite significant development. In fact, I had the opportunity of talking to Dr Al-Chalabi, who is the Deputy Secretary General of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, when he was in Australia just the other day. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. This is very interesting, but it is not really relevant to anything much. Could I ask the Minister to restrain the length of his answer in the interest of getting a few questions asked during this Question Time? The Minister is debating the question, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. I point out that there have been a number of long questions, a number of long answers and a number of supplementary questions. That is the reason a very small number of questions is being asked today. I ask the Minister to keep that in mind. Senator COOK —I will indeed, Mr President. The question was: What significance do we attach to the announcement of this development. I was just annotating its significance, but I will bring my answer to a conclusion fairly rapidly. The Perch and Dolphin reserves are estimated at 19 million barrels of crude each and, as Senator Cooney has indicated, it will cost about $85m to develop those fields. The partners, Esso-BHP, are also going to conduct further exploration-I think another five wells are to be drilled in the Bass Strait area in the next year-so the exploration side of their agenda as well as the production side is up. It is important, too, that the Government, during the period of stewardship of this portfolio by Senator Evans, negotiated a package of excise concessions with Esso-BHP in this area. That has proved to be an incentive for further development and, since the first 30 million barrels of crude produced from these fields in each case will not be taxed by excise, that has proved to be a successful incentive for that type of development. Overall, it is clear that we have the tax mix right and that the economic and political stability offered by Victoria is appropriate for a development of this sort. Senator BROWNHILL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business. I draw his attention to an article in yesterday's Australian newspaper which stated that Dr Trevor Scott, the head of the Animal Production Unit of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), has been forced to resign because, as he says, he can `no longer manage and implement policies which are leading to a systematic destruction of the animal production research effort in CSIRO'. Given that Dr Scott is acknowledged as a leading research scientist and that, as head of the unit for the past 14 years, he has demonstrated an unquestioned loyalty to the aims and aspirations of CSIRO, does the Minister not agree that Dr Scott's resignation is a severe blow for Australia's $14 billion livestock industry? What justification can the Minister give for the cutbacks his Government has made to research and particularly to the CSIRO? Does the Minister accept that his Government's appointment of a former Labor Premier, Neville Wran, to the position of Chairman of CSIRO has been neither wise nor appropriate? Senator BUTTON —I might deal with the last part of the question first. Mr Wran has been a very dedicated and committed Chairman of CSIRO and I believe he has worked very hard at that task. I certainly regard the appointment as appropriate. Senator Chaney —Like Minister Jones-widely acclaimed but not very effective. That is the same sort of pattern. Senator BUTTON —If I might say so, I do not think it is the same sort of pattern. The question is about Mr Wran, not about Mr Jones. If Senator Chaney wishes to ask me a question about Mr Jones I will be happy to try to answer it. But let us get it clear. One regrets the resignation of any distinguished scientist from a position of importance. The article in the Australian claims that Dr Scott is standing down from his position because of Budget cuts. He has been head of the division for the past 14 years. His current term as chief of the division was to conclude in February 1989. Dr Scott indicated several months ago, prior to the Budget, that he did not wish to be offered appointment for a further term. His position has been advertised internationally since he indicated that. It is a bit of a long bow in the circumstances to draw the conclusion, as some other conclusions have been drawn, that Dr Scott retired as a result of the Government's Budget strategy in respect of CSIRO finances. Senator MacGibbon —Nonsense, the CSIRO is in complete disarray. Senator BUTTON —I come back to the point of Senator Brownhill's question which suggests that Dr Scott retired because of the Budget. I am telling honourable senators-if this is an unpalatable fact I suggest that Senator MacGibbon try to swallow it-that Dr Scott gave notice several months ago that he did not wish to be reappointed. Senator Teague —Next year. Senator BUTTON —As from February 1989. That was when his appointment concluded and he did not wish to be offered appointment for a further term. His position was consequently advertised internationally. That is the important fact. I want to say something briefly about the question of the CSIRO budget because it has been made relevant in Senator Brownhill's question. What the Government has done in respect of the CSIRO budget is to agree to maintain in real terms the appropriation funding levels for CSIRO for three years. It is the first time that has happened to CSIRO for quite a long time, if ever before. The purpose of that is to assist forward planning in CSIRO and to facilitate the planned expansion of identified priority research areas. At the same time the Government has set a target for CSIRO to achieve 30 per cent of its funding from external sources. I would not have thought anyone from the Opposition would have any objection to that, listening as I have over several years to the desultory questions one is asked about science policy. The Opposition knows the figures. It was in government when the disastrous figures for research and development funding in this country were known internationally, when private sector research and development in this country dropped to the lowest levels in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development table. Opposition senators were the people in government when all that happened. They ought to know all that. The fact of the matter is that in terms of a strategy for CSIRO there is real term funding for three years to assist it in forward planning. There is a target set for it to earn 30 per cent of its earnings from external sources and it will be able to retain that money. Senator Chapman —You will cut it again. Senator BUTTON —No, we will not. I said there was a guaranteed funding from the Government. The honourable senator should have a look at it in two or three years time. Senator Chapman —No, I will have a look at it now. Senator Walsh —You are pretty good at looking for income on the side, or you thought you were. Senator BUTTON —Senator Walsh is right. This is intended as an incentive for CSIRO to foster even greater interaction with industry. In the course of the Budget we also approved a major capital redevelopment project at North Ryde. This year's appropriation is $334m from the Federal Government, which is a pretty big slab of Commonwealth revenue to pay to an organisation as important as CSIRO. There has been a lot of confusion in people's minds about this issue which is often fuelled, as it were, by dubious questions and dubious comments of the kind which I do not blame Senator Brownhill for. It is sometimes fuelled by that sort of misinformation about CSIRO matters. Senator BROWNHILL —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask the Minister whether he disagrees with the statement in the Australian newspaper which was attributed to Dr Scott and which read: ``This continued reduction in funds made available from the Government for the strategic or longer-term research and development for the animal industries is one of the main reasons why I have decided to step down as chief of this division in early 1989,'' he told The Australian yesterday. I ask the Minister whether that is correct. In answering the last part of the question does the Minister not have any regard to the fact that Mr Wran had forbidden all departmental heads of CSIRO from public comment on the Budget effects on the CSIRO? Senator BUTTON —Let me say first of all that I did not say that what Senator Brownhill just suggested Dr Scott said was incorrect. I said it is incorrect to relate his comment to that Budget, if it was made, as I believe, prior to the 1988 Budget. It is quite incorrect to relate it to that Budget as Senator Brownhill did in his opening question. Senator Bishop —He had to resign to say it. Senator BUTTON —Senator Bishop has the facts muddled as usual. Let me make it quite clear that Senator Brownhill sought to relate this to the Budget funding of CSIRO. I am sorry but one cannot do that. If Dr Scott made a statement subsequently that he was leaving earlier than his foreshadowed February retirement date he may well have said it was because he was aggrieved by Budget funding but he did not originally establish that intention with the CSIRO. In so far as the question of the Chairman of CSIRO attempting to gag CSIRO staff is concerned, I have seen no such indication from the Chairman of CSIRO. I have seen a copy of a letter from the Chairman of CSIRO to a divisional head saying that he hoped this would not continue to be a matter of public comment. That is a vastly different thing from-- Senator MacGibbon —He was gagged. Senator BUTTON —Senator MacGibbon, who is usually an expert on defence matters, has now become an expert on the English language. That is a vastly different thing from the use of the word `gag', which he used in his silly interjection. The PRESIDENT —As honourable senators will be aware, the Thirty-fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference was held in Canberra from 18 to 25 September. During the conference, which was attended by some 300 delegates from national and state legislatures from 43 Commonwealth countries, a number of agenda items of interest to all Commonwealth parliamentarians were discussed. During the plenary sessions the topics included: international peace and security, with special reference to SouthernAfrica; improving international trade, especially in agricultural products; superpower disarmament; and environmental protection. Panel discussions included drug problems; parliamentary committees in the control and scrutiny of government expenditure; establishing a parliamentary branch of Amnesty International; education mobility in the Commonwealth; combating acquired immune deficiency syndrome; and the impact of a declining world economy on women and youth. All sessions were marked by high quality contributions and keen debate. The Commonwealth Secretary-General made a major speech to the conference and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade Negotiations hosted dinners for the conference participants. The conference, which was attended by a number of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, Presiding Officers and senior Ministers, was a great success for Australia and this Parliament in particular. A number of trade opportunities were explored, and there was a considerable exchange of ideas between parliamentarians in both the formal sessions and the informal activities. An unusual feature of this conference was that the delegates arrived in Australia through a number of different entry points where the State and Territory branches provided pre-conference programs for all delegates. The Small Countries Conference and the Executive Committee meeting were hosted in Hobart by the Tasmanian Branch. On behalf of the Commonwealth Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I want to thank all State and Territory branches for the hospitality which was extended to delegates prior to the conference in Canberra. The Commonwealth of Australia delegation was led by the Hon. Ben Humphreys, MP, and it contributed greatly to the conference proceedings. As Joint President of the Commonwealth Branch, I want to thank all members of the delegation for their contribution to all conference activities during the week. This conference would not have been the success it was without the dedicated work of many people who work for the Parliament. This includes the conference secretariat led by Kieran Schneemann and the numerous individuals who provided assistance to the delegates and the conference in general. The group of people I wish to single out for special tribute are the members of the Parliamentary Catering Service and the property section of the Joint House Department. The quality of the meals and the level of service provided by these people throughout the entire week was outstanding. Many delegates from senior member countries of the Commonwealth remarked on this feature of the conference and commented that such service on this scale could not have been provided in their own parliaments. I take this opportunity to thank each and every member of the staff of the Parliament from all departments who made a contribution to the success of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.11) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I concur fully with Mr President's statement. I believe that Australia can be justly proud of the conduct of the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) Conference. You, Mr President, as President of the CPA and the conference, represented all parliamentarians in Australia in a magnificent way. I commend you for the contribution you have made to this Parliament through that CPA conference. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.12) —Mr President, I endorse the remarks that you have made relating to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting and I endorse your remarks thanking those people who made the conference such a success. Mr President, I think that you missed one person in your remarks-that is, yourself. You were the chairman of the conference. It was evident that you conducted that conference with efficiency, allowing the debate to range over a wide area of subjects which were of interest to the delegates. I notice that there were only three slight queries about your rulings-one of which inevitably came from an Indian delegate, and two of which came from unnamed persons on the Australian delegation. However, the warmth with which you were greeted at the end of the session showed how much the delegates from the various countries appreciated your chairmanship. Mr President, you were not, of course, on the delegation as you are the President of the International Secretariat, so, as a member of the Australian delegation, I wish also to congratulate and thank the secretary of our delegation, Mark McRae from the House of Representatives, and his colleagues from the House of Representatives and the Senate who were involved substantially in the success of this conference. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.14) —At the risk of perhaps repeating some remarks already made, I should like to endorse those remarks. As chairman of the conference, Mr President, you have brought great credit to this Parliament, not just at the conference in the last week or so but throughout your term as President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. You have set a standard for others to live up to. Your handling of that large conference, of some 300 people from 40 countries and many parliaments, was skilful and dignified. I also refer to Mrs Sibraa, who, with the staff involved, ran the spouses program. From talking to spouses during the week of the conference, I noted that there was not one who was not delighted with the program offered. That the conference was in Canberra, the national capital, was pleasing to me because there are so many things here that we wanted to show the overseas delegates. They certainly saw the sights and features of the national capital, which they enjoyed. I noticed that many of them were exhausted on occasions. Perhaps the highlight of it was Dr Heptulla's comment that the delegates had not only shaken hands with a kangaroo but had seen `sheeps being undressed'. I think that that, in a sense, brought it all home to us. One could not refer to the conference without commenting on Mr Kieran Schneemann and the role he played in working with you, Mr President, to ensure that the conference was put on with the style it was. Also, for those of us who were in the delegation led by the Hon. Ben Humphreys, Mark McRae made sure that we were catered for and looked after as a delegation should be. The liaison officers from the various departments of the Parliament, all wearing their brown Akubras, not only added style to the function but were at all times ready to assist delegates. The number of delegates who wanted to change their airline bookings in the last few days put tremendous pressure on all the people involved in the organisation of the conference. Of course, there will be the chance to comment on the substance of the debates when the report is presented. However, those people who are running this building-who are still quite new to it-really deserve our very warm thanks and gratitude for the way the functions went off. The speed with which they had to turn the Great Hall from a meeting room into a hall for dinner and then back again into a meeting place for the next morning was remarkable. The dining room staff and those people in the kitchens who were preparing the food are to be congratulated. The food was of an extremely high standard, as were the functions generally. Those people deserve our thanks. To put on a function of that size at any time certainly takes considerable talent; to do it in a very new building such as this, even more so. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(3.17) —I associate myself with the remarks of other members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. As one who participated last week, I would not like it to be thought that there was no-one from the Government benches in the Senate present at that conference; there was. I particularly associate myself with the remarks congratulating you, Mr President, on your patient conduct of the conference and to congratulate Kieran Schneemann on his years of organisation leading up to an event which did Australia proud. As far as the contribution of Australians to the conference debate goes, I draw particular attention to my House of Representatives colleague Mr Tickner for his contribution in leading off the debate on the disarmament question. Secondly, I draw attention to the participation of all those delegates who we know are associated with the Amnesty International group in this Parliament in the very important panel session in that area-a session which had the potential to create severe tension because some of the countries felt sensitive about the matter being discussed. As I understand it, the discussion was very successful. I think that all those delegates who were involved in that session and who made contributions to other panel debates and the plenary session debates deserve our congratulations. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I have received a letter from Senator Alston proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: The serious burden to the national economy imposed by the extraordinarily high levels of public debt in Victoria, the onerous burden of Victorian State taxes and charges and the gross mismanagement of the Victorian economy as exemplified by the $2.1 billion unfunded liabilities of Workcare, the horrendous losses approaching $1 billion per annum of the State transport system and the hundreds of millions of dollars put at risk by the bungled investment policies of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Senator ALSTON(Victoria)(3.20) —Victorians will go to the polls on 1 October and I do not think I need to say that it is going to be a very important day for the future of that State. Of course, voters could be excused for not knowing that there is to be an election on that day because in recent weeks the Victorian Government has assiduously cultivated forms of entertainment other than politics. If people are not watching the Olympic Games on television night and day, they have been attending the grand final, some perhaps with more enjoyment than others, or going to the royal show. What we have had over the last few weeks in Victoria is a calculated attempt to distract voters from the real issues. It is the sort of strategy that most of us are familiar with because almost $50m was spent in similar vein fairly recently, and of course that proved that the Federal Government was too clever by half. I have no doubt that the same result will befall the Victorian Government on 1 October. Senator Chapman —What did they spend the money on? Senator ALSTON —It spent $6m on running a fruitless Constitutional Commission and the balance on sending us to the ballot boxes on a referendum. Quite clearly, the same strategy is being used here. I do not know whether Senator Button has been giving cogent advice to his old friend and colleague Premier John Cain, but I venture to say that even Malcolm Blight will not be able to save John Cain on 1 October. I wonder whether John Cain and John Button have much in common any more. If we look at the way the State of Victoria is run, it is quite clear that this is the last of those State governments that believe in spending money as though it was going out of style, in taking on board about 10,000 public servants in the first two years of government and raising public debt spending to a new art form. I want to go through some of what I think are the quite frightening statistics that demonstrate beyond doubt that mismanagement in Victoria has reached such a stage that the voters will have no choice other than to reject massively the Cain Government. It is more than six years since the Australian Labor Party came to power in March 1982. At that time voters were promised all sorts of new goodies. We were told it was going to be a new era of modern economic management, that all the latest and most sophisticated financial techniques such as program budgeting would be introduced and that this would somehow deliver Victoria into a new era of prosperity and efficiency. Of course the opposite has occurred. All of this new financial jargon has become simply a matter of beads and mirrors. It has served no real purpose at all,as the Government has imposed no disciplines or restraints. As a result we have had this massive overspending that now causes such great travail in Victoria. After six years I think we are entitled to look at the Victorian Government's record. Perhaps the most devastating indictment appeared in last Saturday morning's Australian. It stated that Moody's Investor Services Inc., the international credit rating agency, was reported as having done a very close analysis on Victoria's debt position and it came to a number of damning conclusions. One could summarise them by saying that Victoria is now beyond doubt bearing the heaviest debt burden of all the States. But the report also found that Victoria has the highest gross State debt; the second highest ratio of gross debt to gross State product and the lowest ratio of liquid assets to debt; the highest net debt per capita of all the mainland States, the highest interest bill and the highest debt service ratio measured as the ratio of total net interest paid to total revenue. No one could do much more than that if he wants to single out one government as being much worse than all the rest. The end result is that of every dollar now paid in State taxation 22c goes to pay the interest on that debt, compared to 15c in 1982, the last year when the Liberal Party was in Government in that State. A lot has happened for the worse in that time. It is quite clear, according to Moody's, that Victoria's debt service ratio is higher than that of any state and for no good reason. It is rather pathetic to look at the explanations offered by the Victorian Treasurer, Mr Jolly. His first justification was that we should not look at the level of debt but rather take it as a proportion of gross domestic product. Moodys did not accept that approach and I think it is just a feeble attempt to distract attention from all the other indices which clearly point to debt being out of control. The Victorian Treasurer also said this: The reason for the high figure for Victoria is the relatively capital-intensive nature of the public sector. If that is just a frank admission that somehow Victoria is overburdened in its public sector, I will take it at face value, but he does not seem to accept that there is anything wrong with that. He simply states the fact and then says that somehow that explains why Victoria is in such a parlous state. I think it is clear that there are many ways in which that debt burden now bears on all Victorians. As a result we find that, in order to cope with these levels of debt and the interest required to service it, Budget expenditure has increased at an average annual rate of 3 per cent in real terms and that Victorian per capita expenditure has increased from $1,508 in 1981-82 to $2,832 in 1988-89, an increase of 14 per cent in real terms. The Budget deficit has virtually trebled under the Cain Government. There are a massive number of statistics which demonstrate beyond doubt that there are reasons why the State Government in Victoria does not really believe in fiscal responsibility and in proper economic management. About 65 per cent of State Budget outlays are in labour costs or labour related costs. Public sector employment in Victoria has grown at treble the rate of other States. I do not want to go into detail of that; suffice it to say that it is not accidental, it is quite deliberate. It is founded in the belief that somehow the more public servants there are, the more people there are to hand out the goodies-the more people there are to service the media unit, to pump out disinformation, to pork-barrel as much as possible and to ensure that people are grateful for big government. Well, it certainly has not worked out that way. Victoria's net State debt has more than doubled in seven years. In real terms it has increased by 27 per cent and it will go on and on increasing if the Victorian Government is given another opportunity. Its profligate spending program and debt servicing costs have driven State taxes and charges to record levels. State taxation has more than doubled in the seven years of the Cain Labor Government, increasing by 41.4 per cent in real terms. Victorians now pay more in State taxes per head of population than the residents of any other State. When it comes to public utilities there are hidden taxes on items such as gas, water, electricity and other statutory authority services which have increased from $111m in 1981-82 to $607m in 1988-89. Need I go on? The level of State taxes and charges is a scandal in Victoria. But of course there are a number of other scandals. State public transport is a classic example. While the Liberal Party has recognised that 90 per cent of Victorians travel by car, that the road system is greatly in need of repair and expansion, that we need new freeways and ring roads, the Labor Government in this election campaign has pledged to spend not one cent more on private transport needs but instead to boost dramatically the public transport system, which has been declining year in year out and which currently costs almost $1 billion a year net. That is the loss that is incurred. It therefore has committed itself simply to perpetuating that situation. It will not accept any of the sensible suggestions that have been made about the introduction of automatic ticket machines. It is a captive and a hostage of the union movement in Victoria. A classic example of that is that there is, as we all know, a fair rate of attrition in all areas of the Public Service, certainly in public utilities, but when it came to dealing with the railways the Government meekly suggested that over a 15-year period 1,400 jobs might be lost, and the trade union movement and the Australian Railways Union in particular said they would not wear that. They could not agree to the shedding of 1,400 jobs. They asked for talks and the Government immediately said it was prepared to discuss the matter further. It is clear that if the unions will not wear something this Government does not have the gumption to withstand that pressure. It has a blind, ideological obsession with public transport, even though it is clear beyond doubt that Victorians vote with their cars. They are not prepared to leave home and travel by public transport, not knowing whether that same public transport will be available that evening. The Victorian Government will not accept consumer preference. As a result it is going to spend more and more money in areas in which the population of Victoria has clearly demonstrated it does not want money spent. Let me give a couple of classic quotations. They are withering testimonials from the chief ideologue of Victoria, Mr Cain. This what he said about public transport in 1986, which is more than four years after he came to government. He said: The Government has tried to bring these work practices up to date and to provide a better system. Considerable progress has been made. Victoria is now heading towards having the best public transport system. Honourable members should ask anyone who uses public transport whether he or she is satisfied that public transport is better now that it was before. Constituents will know the system is better. In other words, he was not prepared to say the system is good. He was not prepared to vouch for any significant improvements. He was simply saying it is better than it was. After all the money that has been pumped in, after all the funny money deals of selling railways to the Australian Government and then buying them back on secret leasing arrangements, it is not surprising that we have got more modern rolling stock and that one could say the system is better than it was before. But even the Premier did not argue that the system is good, that somehow it is performing or that the expenditure is justified. What he said later in that year was almost laughable. He said: The performance by the Minister, Tom Roper, and by the Government is the best proof of the popularity of our public transport system. Of course, Mr Roper subsequently got the chop and I do not think anyone would pretend for a moment that there is any popularity attaching to the public transport system in Victoria. They are the sorts of glowing testimonials that the Premier gives. I certainly would not want a character reference if that is his state of mind. It is quite clear that the problems of the public transport system in Victoria are of titanic proportions and it is certainly sinking faster than the Titanic did. The Labor Government is not prepared to take the measures that are required or to cut back in the areas where funds do not need to be spent in order to spend them in areas where they manifestly are needed, such as on ring roads and freeways. The ultimate ideological commitment is WorkCare. As anyone who has worked in the area of personal injuries would know, even the Leader of the Government and Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), there are very many problems with almost any system that one introduces, but perhaps the worst way that one could go is to try to put an artificial price cap on premiums for five years without trying to improve the expenditure costs in the system. That is precisely what the Government did. It was a cynical attempt to pretend that somehow it could wish away the massive burden of that system. The first thing the Victorian Government did was to drive all private insurers out of the market, which ensured that there was a monopoly running the system, with no incentive for efficiency. In the first 22 months of operation WorkCare lost $1,706m. Senator Parer —How much? A billion? Senator ALSTON —$1.7 billion. The sorts of things that we all took for granted as sensible means of keeping down levels of fraud, such as allowing the use of films in court, were banned. Employers were required to pay moneys for the first seven months irrespective, as long as the worker claimed to be injured. On it went. Rehabilitation was introduced as some sort of global saviour, when anyone who had studied the system knew that rehabilitation was an empty charade; there had been pilot projects, which simply had not worked. Now we have reached the point where it was announced last week that the unfunded liabilities of WorkCare exceed $2 billion. The consulting actuary retained by WorkCare itself has reported that, even with the changes proposed to be made by the Government, the system will be bare of assets by 1992. In other words, it is in a state of absolute crisis. It is a system that the Government will not acknowledge is in need of fundamental repair. Indeed, it is quite clear that the system cannot continue in anything like its present form. Unless competition is reintroduced into the system, it will go on and on being milked. I do not have any doubt that everyone in Victoria knows what a scandal it is and knows how easy it is to get money from the system and how little work results from all of these so-called changes. I come now to perhaps one of the most scandalous examples of economic mismanagement in the State of Victoria. It relates to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC). As the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce would well know, the principal reason why this election was called early was to save the scalp of the Deputy Premier. Senator Button —I thought it was because the Olympic Games were on. Senator ALSTON —That is all part of the timing. It was very fortuitous, of course. But the desperation, the need to call an urgent election, was driven very much by the fact that Mr Fordham was twisting in the wind. He had engaged in all sorts of unnecessary interventions. The Deputy Premier of Victoria, on one view of the matter, was in breach of his statutory obligations and the Government was not prepared to expose him to any more parliamentary cross-examination. That was why it decided that 1 October was the most propitious date, because of all these other distractions. But let us not be distracted for a moment from the pitiful record of the VEDC. What it has done in about six areas is to provide the funds to get into joint ventures for which there is absolutely no economic justification. A classic example, and the one that will bring Mr Fordham down, is Wallace International Ltd. I have a copy of the prospectus here. It says on the outside: The assets of this new company to be floated are of an intangible nature. For this and other reasons appearing in the prospectus, investment in shares offered pursuant to this prospectus are to be considered speculative. If one then looks at the financial statements, which it says have not been audited for any period, one finds that there has been an operating loss every year since 1983 and if it had not been for government grants and the sale of distribution licence rights, the company would have been in the red from the date of its inception. If one excluded advances to related companies and the so-called intellectual property scientific knowledge, the assets of the company would have barely exceeded $600m. On the strength of that the Government, aided and abetted by Mr Fordham, lent $1m, secured by a factory which had not even been purchased, and by a life assurance and disability policy over the founder of the company. When that money was finally repaid, another $10m was advanced to the company. Mr Fordham then insisted that the company should seek to recover its funds and that the VEDC should be repaid some of the moneys that the company had been lent. In fact, when the prospectus was issued there was litigation already under way against the company, which was not mentioned at all in the prospectus but was clearly known to Mr Fordham. Nonetheless, what the Minister did was to authorise the VEDC to sub-underwrite half of the $25m float of that company. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, who is at the table, should know it well, because my information is that not only did Wallace International get its hand into the Victorian Government till for $12.5m by way of sub-underwriting, but it also got an export market development grant on the basis of false and misleading information. Projected sales of products which it submitted in support of the application were found to be wildly in excess of its actual achievement. The VEDC Board was not notified of Mr Fordham's approval of the authorisation of the sub-underwriting agreement until 3 1/2 months after Mr Fordham had made the decision. The full Board was asked to endorse the deal retrospectively and to pay the money owing. Only a few hours after the board had ratified the original agreement and three days before the VEDC paid for the shares it was obliged to buy, as a sub-underwriter, a copy of the share register listing the VEDC as Wallace International's second biggest shareholder. The Government intervened quite improperly. Again it is impossible to understand why, other than that it had some sort of notion that it could pick winners; that somehow there was a role for government to be played in this area. There is nothing smart about Wallace International; there is nothing unique about its business. It is just another little outfit that the Government wanted to help. Although I do not have time to dwell on the detail, there are half a dozen other examples of companies that have gone to the wall, that have resulted in very many millions of dollars still remaining owing to the creditors, and the creditors are ultimately the taxpayers of Victoria. They are the ones who will voice their displeasure in no uncertain terms on 1 October and they will demonstrate why Australian taxpayers are suffering at the hands of the Victorian Government's incompetence. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(3.40) —There has been a touch of hyperbole and exaggeration in what Senator Alston has had to say about the Victorian Government today. I can understand that he, as a Victorian senator, has certain preselection considerations to look after and certain tribal loyalties, as I put it earlier, which he has to carry out. It is a sad fact that not many people in the Victorian Liberal Party, even in the parliamentary party, have the same sort of tribal loyalties to the leader. I was in a hairdresser's last week-that is a very interesting piece of information for the Senate-and the barber said to me, `You know, the last politician I had in here was a member of the State Liberal parliamentary Party. I told him, ``You've got to get rid of that Jeff Kennett''. Do you know what he said to me? He said, ``We're working on it as hard as we can''.' That is the sort of tribal loyalty that exists to the Leader of the Liberal Party in Victoria. Senator Alston, as he is from Victoria, has to go through this ritual in the Senate in order to try to help his desperate Victorian colleagues. It reminds me of Henry IV, Part I, when the Welsh leader, Glendower, said, `I can summon spirits from the vasty deep', and Hotspur said, `Yes, yes but will they come?'. Senator Alston is trying to summon spirits from the vasty deep, but of course the question is: will they come? On 2 October the Victorian people will be confronted with a choice between the existing Government in Victoria and a disunited, divided, lacklustre group of people who have been sitting on the Opposition benches for years and have no profile at all in the minds of the Victorian people other than as buffoons. In pursuit of helping his Victorian colleagues, Senator Alston is up to old Liberal Party tricks-getting things wrong, mucking things up, not doing his homework. Today he made a big point about an article in Saturday's Weekend Australian about the debts of the Victorian Government. He failed to refer to a correction in yesterday's Australian. Senator Alston —By Jolly. Senator BUTTON —No, not by Jolly; by the Australian-a very important correction in yesterday's Australian. In the weekend newspaper an article purported to describe Victorian State debt. It was wrong in a number of respects, but Senator Alston came in here relying on it. Yesterday a very coy correction reported the correct position. That is, if one looks at gross debt as a percentage of gross State product of Victoria, Victoria had the second lowest debt burden of the four States measured using this ratio. This measure is the real test of indebtedness because it shows whether one can repay a debt. Senator Alston —Says Jolly. Senator BUTTON —No, it has nothing to do with the Treasurer of Victoria, it has to do with the Australian. That measure shows whether one has the income to repay a debt. No one questions Victoria's capacity in this regard. The international credit rating agency, Moody's, to which Senator Alston again referred, has awarded Victoria, and has continued to award Victoria, the highest-- Senator Alston —Are you pretending that Moody's somehow did not recite eight different indicators where Victoria was in trouble? Senator BUTTON —Senator Alston is excited because he is wrong and he is upset. He set out to help his Victorian colleagues and, as usual, he has mucked it up. It is Hobson's choice whether one would want the Victorian representatives in the Senate or the Victorian representatives in the State Parliament. In terms of competence in getting their facts right, they are all of the same colour. That is why, no doubt, Senator Alston supports them. He feels a warm glow of mutual ignorance. Senator Alston keeps on trying to interject because he does not like the facts. Moody's has consistently awarded Victoria the highest credit rating that any State can achieve. The reason for that is that Victoria's debt is coming down and is now just over half the debt to gross domestic product (GDP) ratio that honourable senators opposite had in the so-called golden days of dear old Henry Bolte, when Victoria was described as the jewel in the Liberal crown. Senator Alston —Are you pretending this report does not exist? Senator BUTTON —It is all right for Senator Alston to brandish documents and try to interrupt what I am saying because it is very unpalatable to him. The fact is that the ratio is half that which existed in the golden days of Henry Bolte, when Victoria was the jewel in the crown of the Liberal Party. That is how good honourable senators opposite were in government. There is, of course, significant capacity for people such as Senator Alston to make mischief with those sorts of comparisons. The Opposition's performance here today shows it in its true colours. I want to refer to a few facts about Victoria which Senator Alston ought to listen to. After 27 years of Liberal rule in Victoria, economic growth in that State is as good as it has ever been. When John Cain came to power in Victoria there was one crane on the Melbourne city skyline. Today building activity in the central business district of Melbourne is at an all time high. Senator Short —And relatively the lowest of any State in Australia. Senator BUTTON —Senator Short will get his opportunity. He is a sacked ex-spokesman on finance for the Liberal Party. He will have the opportunity to get his figures right when he speaks. Senator Alston —You cannot be a sacked ex unless you are tautologous. Senator BUTTON —Perhaps I am tautologous, but I wanted to make the point doubly clear that it was Senator Short who was speaking. Growth in real private business investment since the Cain Government came to power has been 46 per cent compared with 25 per cent for the rest of the country. Total exports for Victoria have risen by 75 per cent in real terms since 1982-83. For 63 consecutive months Victoria has recorded the lowest unemployment rate of any State. Senator Short —Tell us about employment growth-the lowest in Australia. Senator BUTTON —I am moving on to that. Wait. More than 286,000 new jobs have been created in Victoria since April 1983. Victoria's share of national business investment is expected to be 29.9 per cent in 1988-89-more than eight points higher than the figure of six years ago. I am disappointed that Senator Alston has failed to recognise the achievements of the Victorian Government. They have not been overlooked by the Victorian public. Victorians know that in the last six years the State's economic growth has been 1 1/3 times that of the rest of Australia. There is always resort to phoney numbers to attack the Government's record. Mr Kennett has claimed that Victoria is the highest taxing of the Australian States. He supports that by putting together a whole lot of charges, such as those for veterinary licences, which have gone up. On the basis of examples such as that, he says that Victorian taxes have gone up more than taxes anywhere else. That is an example of what is called, in economic debate, user pays. Does the Liberal Party believe in user pays? I thought it did. Honourable senators opposite are always bleating about user pays. That is what the Victorian Government has done in relation to professional charges. Jeff Kennett then says, `This is an increase in taxes'. For goodness sake, do honourable senators opposite not know the difference? I understand that Jeff Kennett might not, but honourable senators opposite ought to. They at least have the opportunity to listen to views of people such as myself and are able to get an advantage in that way. These figures on tax have been vastly misrepresented. According to the Australian Statistician, Victoria's per capita taxation in 1987-88 was $971. That is well below the figure for New South Wales of $1,009. Apart from that sort of nonsense, the Opposition's numbers are ludicrous. It ignores the principle of fiscal equalisation enshrined in the federal system which ensures that the less populous States appear to have the lowest per capita taxes. A more consistent measure of the share of a State's product being taken by the Government is the statistics published in the Federal Budget Papers. They give State own source revenue as a percentage of gross State product. So taking away the jargon, these figures show how much of the State economy each State government takes for its own purposes. The most up to date version of those numbers shows that Victoria's State Government own source revenue is the fourth highest of any State. However, if State revenue per head is taken into account, Victoria does one better. On that measure, it is the fifth highest of the six States. The State that has been administered for the longest time by the Liberal Party, Tasmania, has the highest per capita revenue collections of all States. The Cain Government has also shown up well in keeping revenue collections to a minimum. I think that one can justifiably make the claim that, under the present Government, Victoria is a low tax State-perhaps the second lowest tax State. During the period from 1982-83 to 1987-88, the time that the present Victorian Government has been in office, Victoria was the lowest of the six States in relation to tax. On the question of taxes and charges, let me make the point that the government charges component of the Melbourne consumer price index (CPI)-a Commonwealth statistic, Senator Alston-has increased by only 44.2 per cent since March 1982, compared to 59.4 per cent for Australia as a whole. This year, the Victorian Government is committed to ensuring that Victorian families face no overall increases in costs in relation to a basket of government services, including electricity, gas, Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works rates, motor vehicle registration fees, as well as urban public transport charges. I make the same point about increases in electricity, gas and Board of Works charges this year-they are well below the forecast inflation rate and compare most favourably with New South Wales, where those costs have increased by 9.1 and 8 per cent respectively. One could go on making these comparisons in terms of figures, and so on. It is very easy to talk about figures in hypothetical terms, but the real measure is whether or not the runs are on the board. The real question concerns the choice between a lacklustre Opposition, led by a buffoon and supported by an inaccurate senator, and a government which has exercised great economic responsibility and which has done some other very important things in terms of laying the basis for a sound economy in Australia for years to come. Senator Alston touched on the matter of WorkCare, and I want to say just one thing about that. It is true that the Victorian Government saw fit, and I believe responsibly so, to make some changes to the WorkCare arrangements. I think it is very much to its credit that it has done so. The real question is: what is the choice in Victoria? What does the Liberal Party in Victoria offer as an alternative to WorkCare? What will it do? Mr Kennett does not know. Does Senator Alston know of an alternative to WorkCare? Senator Alston —It is not hard to work out. Senator BUTTON —Well, I guess the honourable senator ought to get on the telephone to Jeff Kennett and tell him. People in Victoria have only three days to work it out, and so Senator Alston had better get down there and tell them-because they are not about working it out on the back of a chequebook or something like that. They want to know what the alternative government stands for. That is the only point I want to make about WorkCare. I also want to make a point about the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC). It has provided $580m in loans to over 1,600 Victorian companies. I do not shrink for a moment from the fact that in a program like that, from time to time, misjudgments and failures will occur. Senator Alston —There certainly have been. Senator BUTTON —Senator Alston has found one; that is all he referred to in his speech. Senator Alston —I didn't have time; there are heaps of them. Senator BUTTON —The honourable senator did not have time, he says. However, some 1,600 Victorian companies have benefited from Victorian Economic Development Corporation assistance of one kind or another. Some 40,000 new jobs have been created for Victorians, many in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. The bottom line is that, when the VEDC makes a loan to a company, it tries to arrange appropriate securities. I do not want to go into the details of the-- Senator Alston —I'll bet you don't. Senator BUTTON —No, I do not want to go into the criticism that the honourable senator has made about Wallace International and the VEDC loan. We could debate that endlessly. But that is not the point about the VEDC program. The point about that program is that it has assisted 1,600 companies and it has helped in the creation of 40,000 new jobs. As I say, one does not retreat from the fact that from time to time a body like that will make mistakes. As regards the public transport system, other senators on this side of the House will refer to that matter. This whole matter began with an ill- informed analysis based on an incorrect newspaper report by Senator Alston-the loyal senator from Victoria. He is loyal to Jeff Kennett as not many Victorian parliamentarians are. He is as loyal to Jeff Kennett as the National President of the Liberal Party is not. At least Senator Alston has a preselection-and he has to look after it. The honourable senator launched his whole criticism on the basis of an incorrect report that he has inadequately analysed. That is the sort of standard that we expect from the Liberal Party Opposition, both here and in Victoria-and we have rightly come to expect it because that is the standard that has applied for the past six years. The real choice that Victorians are faced with is whether they want an honest government, a very honest government committed to good management, which looks ahead and which will build new industries, as it has done, better than any other State-- Senator Alston —Like Alcoa. Do you support joint ventures there? Senator BUTTON —Yes, like Alcoa. It is looking to the future. This choice is to be made by what I believe to be an intelligent electorate, and in that circumstance I have no doubt about what the choice will be. The basis of it all, of course, is the question of good economic management. I do not call in aid many third party referees. Senator Alston called none in aid. However, let me quote one source-and I refer to comments that were made by Mr Bob Ansett, a distinguished businessman, committed to private sector enterprise and committed to deregulation. On 8 September, Mr Ansett had this to say: . . . the thing that matters to me is strong economic management- and elsewhere he makes the point that all the other issues flow from that, that law and order and all those things follow from that- and so I guess I would have to be persuaded that the coalition is going to be able to more efficiently manage the State than the Government-as yet I haven't been convinced of that . . . I have seen nothing to suggest that Mr Ansett has changed his mind or to suggest that intelligent voters in Victoria will not be totally persuaded by that central issue in regard to the Victorian State election. Mr Ansett refers, of course, to the coalition: Mr Kennett cannot even make up his mind whether he is going to lead a coalition or lead the Liberal Party alone-if he were successful in this election. He cannot even make up his mind about that issue, three days before an election. If it was a coalition, it would be disastrous for the Liberal Party. Senator Alston —Don't worry. It won't be. Your fears can be put to rest. Senator BUTTON —Well, we have Senator Alston's views about that-as we have those of the President of the Liberal Party, Mr Elliott, and all the others. Everywhere one looks in the Liberal Party there is a different view about whether there would be a coalition or not, and now we have flushed out Senator Alston's views. I am sure it will be very reassuring for everyone in Victoria that Senator Alston is of that view. This attempt that has been made by the Opposition is a specious one, based on bad figures and bad material, to influence the choice of the Victorian people. I have great confidence in them, and I have no doubt that the Victorian Government will be re-elected, because it is a very good State government. I do not think there is any threat to the Victorian Government from Senator Alston. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Senator POWELL(Victoria)(4.00) —Earlier today I had some discussions with a group of fine young Australians who are attending a seminar in Canberra. Members of this group from all States have achieved prominence under the Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee Trust. This morning they spent a few moments in this House and in the other place. They said to me that they were quite amazed to hear Federal parliamentarians going on about the Victorian elections. Indeed, they expressed not just amazement but some considerable disapproval, which I would echo. It seems to me to be a considerable misuse of this place, which we often see, that a considerable amount of time has been spent this afternoon discussing the Victorian election-time which could be used for substantive debate on major issues and for dealing with the enormous backlog of legislation introduced last session and during other sessions of this Parliament. However, what we are seeing this afternoon is an all too common practice. We have become accustomed to irrelevant grandstanding, especially before elections, by-elections, referenda and so on. The Australian Democrats feel that it would be much more relevant to the Senate's responsibilities if we took the first line of the matter of public importance proposed by Senator Alston and discussed the burdens on our national economy, especially in relation to national debt. We might then get some real debate on the major issues, which of course only the Democrats seem to want to address. I refer to issues such as the fact that our gross foreign debt-that is, the amount that various governments, public enterprises and the private sector have borrowed overseas-rose from $6 billion in 1975 to $67 billion in 1985 and $115 billion at the end of the last financial year. Much of this debt is short term. In fact, the Bank of International Settlements believes that around 40 per cent of lending to Australia by foreign banks has a maturity of less than one year. Since Treasurer Keating made his `banana republic' statement in April 1986, economic policy in general and fiscal policy in particular in Australia have been designed to gain the approval of international bankers. Obviously these foreign banks would not continue to lend to Australia if they believed that our economy would not be able to earn or borrow the foreign currency to repay them. To keep the banks lending to us, the Government pursues an economic strategy that maintains the bankers' confidence. Bankers would like to see Australia increasing its foreign currency earnings through increased exports. If that happened, we could stop borrowing to pay for our past borrowings. The Government has not been able to achieve a substantial increase in exports or a reduction in imports. Instead, it has attempted to placate the bankers by reducing expenditure in areas such as welfare, reducing wages, deregulating the financial system and producing bigger Budget surpluses. Therefore, average and low income Australians bear the brunt of reducing our foreign debt. However, if we analyse the composition of our foreign debt, we could see an alternative course of action. Currently, 54 per cent of our foreign debt is due to private sector borrowing. Daryl Dixon has argued that Alan Bond alone, through his companies, has incurred at least 10 per cent of Australia's private foreign debt. On the day of the Federal Budget, the Bond Corporation announced a record profit of $355m, on which $4m is due as income tax. Foreign borrowing is one way in which the largest private companies can reduce their tax liabilities to as little as the one per cent that the Bond Corporation will pay this year. I am talking about the practice of Australian companies borrowing overseas and then claiming the cost of borrowing as a tax deduction by the use of negative gearing. This Government has shown no inclination at all to stop that; nor has the Opposition. We do not hear Opposition senators screaming about that. Only the Australian Democrats seem to want to make these points on the real issues of foreign debt. We have pointed out that a great deal of our foreign debt is tax driven and has little to do with generating new investment or production. As I say, both the Government and the Opposition seem comfortable in this environment. We are now seeing further accumulation with deregulation and the encouragement of foreign investment, mainly through the purchase of Australian property and businesses. In fact, we are looking at the potential replacement of our foreign debt problem with a foreign ownership problem, a problem which if it is not considered, will have to be faced by future governments and by future generations of Australians. They are the major issues of the Australian economy and our indebtedness which the Democrats believe we should be addressing in this place. The matter of public importance we are debating concerns the issue of Victoria's debt. That, of course, raises a question. During the Victorian election campaign Senator Stone has claimed that that debt was at a level of $23 billion. Senator Stone in his interesting visit raised the spectre of a coalition government, which of course has been raised by other august people in the Liberal and National parties, not the least being the President of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Elliott. It raises the spectre of uncertainty in the event of the loss of the election by the current Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government under Mr Cain. Who would be in the Cabinet in that event? Which portfolios would be held by which members of parliament? Which policies would be in place-those of the Victorian National Party or those of the Victorian Liberal Party? What sort of compromise would be reached? Those questions are of great concern to many Victorians. For instance, strong claims are being made for the Conservation, Forests and Lands portfolio by the National Party, which has a policy very much at odds with the policy forged by Marie Tehan, who has responsibility for that portfolio in the Liberal Party. It is a policy with which environmentalists are considerably more comfortable, as opposed to the National Party policy, which is the usual slash and burn policy we are accustomed to from the conservative side of politics. The question of which policy would hold sway is very much in the minds of Victorians. This morning's Age contains the National Party and Australian Democrats policies for women. I am quite sure that Victorians would be very concerned that in the event of a coalition government being elected the Deputy Premier would be Peter Ross-Edwards. I must say that he is a nice man and a long time acquaintance of mine; but in terms of policy for women, the article in the Age commences by saying: Peter Ross-Edwards basically believes that a woman's place is in the home rather than in the House. The article also says: . . . children, in his eyes, are an undeniable and unavoidable impediment to their political success. As a mother of four I take considerable exception to that comment. I am sure that many other Victorian women would do likewise. The article points out that Mr Ross-Edwards was persuaded to employ a sole male parent at one point. He was quite astonished that this remarkable fellow made arrangements, organised backups and indeed `overcame that burden he was carrying'. I say to my female colleagues who are in the chamber that that sole male parent was not the only person in employment anywhere in Australia to overcome that inevitable burden. Other issues were raised in that article. Interestingly enough, Mr Ross-Edwards takes great umbrage at the interviewer associating him and the National Party with the Country Women's Association. The article quotes him as saying: Don't try and give us the image of just the CWA. Frankly, I would be happy to have the image of the CWA, which is made up of a very hard-working group of people with a very broad range of policies and actions in the community. Mr Ross-Edwards is also quoted as saying: Smart women can have it both ways . . . `They get a lot of privileges and advantages in life and they've all the rights of men, given to them very graciously by their fellow employees and by their husbands and friends'. I think Victorian women at least, and many fair minded men, would be very concerned at those kinds of policies being pursued by a coalition government in Victoria. Since I am quoting from this morning's article in the Age on women's policies, I shall quote the opening lines of the report of the Australian Democrats policy for women, as articulated by Dr Di Bretherton. The report says that the policy reads like a collaboration between Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinhem and Dale Spender. Having had some input to that policy, I find that a rather complimentary analysis of the tone of the women's policy of the Australian Democrats. Senator Stone came to Victoria and talked about the debt which is the subject of Senator Alston's matter of public importance. This, of course, raises the question of what is or is not a debt and what the debt might be. I understand that this morning Mr Kennett warned on the radio that a Liberal government may well have to increase taxes because a hidden State debt may exist. Obviously, the Victorian Liberal Party has in mind using the Greiner discovery of a hidden debt to justify a large percentage of potential tax increases that we can expect if the ALP should fall on 1 October. As has been clearly pointed out by the Victorian Treasurer, Mr Jolly-I would suggest that he is in a position to know the facts-the election promises of the Liberals and Nationals have crashed through the billion dollar barrier; yet it is those same co- alition parties that are running around warning about a $23 billion debt figure. I am sure that right now the Victorian Auditor is sitting around scratching his head wondering where all that is hidden. The answer is that the debt on the scale being proclaimed by the coalition will come into being only if it comes into government. It is very easy to promise a billion dollars, but it is much easier-as Mr Greiner discovered-to increase taxes to meet a debt brought into being to meet election promises. The bottom line is that the most effective planned economy in the country is that of Victoria. I refer briefly to an article by Kenneth Davidson which was published as far back as last April in which he made a point which Senator Button made about relative taxes and charges and referred to the way in which the Victorian Government has brought management under control through the Department of Management and Budget. Indeed, Kenneth Davidson called the setting up of Cabinet committees to set economic priorities, the consensus within government on the targets of government and the full understanding of people throughout the Government to the goal, which has resulted in high levels of employment and growth-not to mention the cranes in the Melbourne city area-an administrative revolution. The Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) was mentioned in Senator Alston's matter of public importance. It is important to note that the end result of the Liberal Party having found some chinks in the armour will be an unfortunate one, given that those businesses which are successfully involved with the VEDC have now had doubt cast on their names. With such a corporation there will be risks; they are inevitable. It is a shame that those companies which are successful, having been assisted by the VEDC, should now be called into question. I think that Victorians will reject the sorts of things that Senator Alston has said. They will not do so lightly. I do not suggest for a moment that the Cain Government is perfect. If I did I would not be involved as an Australian Democrat in the election campaign in Victoria. Transport, which was raised by Senator Alston, is a good example of where-apart from the fact that open warfare on the industrial relations scene would be the result of a Liberal government-there is no innovation to the extent that there ought to be on behalf of the Labor Government. It adopts the attitude `steady as she goes', which is not good enough. I think that Victorians will be looking for alternatives. They will find them, in their search for a fair go, in the alternatives offered by the Australian Democrats in this election campaign. We offer a broad range of economic policies which promote long term indicative planning, a cost effective, non-intrusive supportive role of government and the economic development of Victoria. In this election campaign those are the sorts of alternatives which will be looked to by Victorians who will reject the rhetoric of Senator Alston and his colleagues and who will not say to the Cain Government, `You have done a perfect job', but rather, `We want to pass a message on that there can be another way'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(4.15) —The Cain Labor Government in Victoria has brought that State to the point of financial bankruptcy. The level of government debt has reached unprecedented levels. Taxes and charges have risen to their highest levels in Victoria's history. Public bodies have had their assets stripped from them and the proceeds of those asset sales have been squandered on profligate spending. The Victorian Public Service has been bloated by an employment increase three times that of other States. The deliberate pursuit of hard core socialist policies, coupled with quite criminal economic mismanagement, has resulted in outstanding liabilities totalling $2.9 billion under the Government's no-fault workers compensation scheme called WorkCare. It has led to the public transport system losing $3m every day of the year. It has put at risk hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars through the operations of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and, more recently, the Victorian Equity Trust. Fear of having some of these matters debated in the Victorian Parliament was the overriding reason why Premier Cain called this totally premature State election. Indeed, so concerned was he that he did not even allow the Parliament to sit to pass the State Budget-a Budget which he said he would stand by but which he has already made obsolete before it has even been passed, by the disclosure of $750m of additional spending commitments made during the election campaign; commitments undertaken in a desperate, panic-driven attempt to bribe voters to support Labor on Saturday. In doing so, Mr Cain has further compounded the fiscal irresponsibility for which he and his Government are now notorious. No Australian State in living memory has been on the brink of financial bankruptcy as a result of economic mismanagement as is Victoria in September 1988. My colleagues in today's debate have already detailed, and will do so after me, some of the relevant statistics. I propose to repeat some of them because they bear repeating time and time again before it is too late, but I will concentrate my remarks on perhaps the greatest single disaster of them all-namely, the Government's socialist system of WorkCare. First I turn to the overall statistics. Far and away the major legacy of the economic vandalism of the Cain Government is an enormous level of public debt. That debt is now $23.64 billion. In more understandable terms, that figure represents a debt of $5,519 for every man, woman and child in Victoria. The debt is now more than double what it was when the Cain Government came to office. This year alone the Government expects the debt to increase by an additional $1.6 billion. This huge increase in Victoria's debt has not happened by accident. It has been the result of a deliberate policy of pump priming by the Cain Government. This pump priming policy is highly interventionist; it is archaic; it is hugely expensive; and it is contrary to the policies now being pursued by virtually every government in the world. The debt has been incurred to fund non-productive expenditure, despite the fact that record levels of interest rates have made the borrowings even more costly. There is no doubt, as I think Senator Alston mentioned, that interest rates will rise again as soon as the Victorian election and the Oxley by-election the following week are out of the way. The result of this huge debt increase is to produce a debt servicing crisis in Victoria. The interest commitment alone, as shown in the 1988 Budget Papers, is $1.3 billion. Since the Cain Government came to office in 1982 the interest bill has increased, on average, by 13 per cent every year. This year it will increase by a further 13 1/3 per cent. Even that figure is derived after a deliberate fiddling of the accounts by the Government. The Government is now borrowing and selling off assets to enable it to meet its interest commitments on previous borrowings. The State Auditor-General reported, as far back as 1985-86-more than two years ago-that $254m of capital funds, mainly borrowings and asset sale proceeds, had been used for recurrent purposes and predominantly to pay interest. Debt servicing costs are now the most serious financial problem for Victoria's major statutory authorities. These authorities have been forced to increase their debt at an alarming rate. Often the debt has come in the form of foreign borrowings. This has imposed grave exchange rate risks on the statutory authorities. Indeed, last year the statutory authorities, and therefore the Victorian taxpayers and consumers of gas, electricity, water, sewerage and other essential services, lost $700m through exchange rate losses alone. They also lost $1,000m on the stock market through statutory authorities being forced by the Government to invest in high risk share portfolios, including, in particular, in the nine months leading up to the stock market crash of October 1987. Interest repayment commitments are now equivalent to well over 50 per cent of the total revenue of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. This is the result of a deliberate policy by the Cain Government. It is a policy motivated by the goal of using Victoria's statutory authorities as sources of revenue and sources of hidden taxation. This year alone such hidden taxes will total more than $600m-a fivefold increase since the Cain Government came to office. This year alone they are budgeted to rise by a further 13 1/2 per cent. These taxes are being ripped out of the statutory authorities and therefore out of the pockets of Victorian taxpayers and consumers, despite the fact that the authorities have consistently performed worse than in other States because of the incompetence of the Cain Government. In 1986 the combined losses of Victoria's public trading enterprises totalled $1,419m. Last year that total was just less than $1,000m. As part of this economic vandalism, this criminal economic incompetence, assets worth many billions of dollars have been sold and the funds used to fuel the Government's continuing financial profligacy. The cost has been quite horrendous. For example, the Government sold $600m worth of railway rolling stock to foreign buyers. Then it leased back the rolling stock, and the lease costs totalled $1,200m over only a five-year period. To make the situation even worse, not one cent of that $600m was used to reduce Victoria's outstanding debt. The Cain Government has also been party to some sale and lease-back deals that can only be described as shonky in the extreme. The most notable is perhaps the Austrian train scam, although it is by no means unique. Late in 1987, Victorian Treasurer Jolly sold rolling stock to an Austrian bank for $200m. On the very same day he bought the rolling stock back for $200m. The stock was therefore regarded as having been exported to Victoria, even though it never left our tracks. As a result, some European investor gained a very substantial tax advantage and $6.5m of the European tax avoidance proceeds was passed to the Victorian Government. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President: who would be prepared to do business with this Labor Government in Victoria? Time prevents me from detailing more such sordid sagas, as I want now to turn to the matter of Victoria's notorious WorkCare scheme-a no fault workers compensation system introduced by the Cain Government in 1985. WorkCare is a financial disaster of the greatest magnitude. After its first two years of operations, unfunded liabilities totalled $1.76 billion. During the just completed third year, 1987-88, unfunded liabilities rose by a further $430m-a further increase of 25 per cent-to the level of $2.136 billion. That figure is equal to $16,000 for each of Victoria's registered employers and represents $500 for every Victorian. The facts about WorkCare are these: WorkCare now owes $2,900m on claims it has received or expects to receive. It has only $774m in funds to pay for those claims and its cash surplus is only $50m. This means that WorkCare requires $3 in addition to every $1 that it currently has available simply to meet its obligations. When WorkCare was established in 1985 the Cain Government said that it would be fully self-funding over a 10-year period. The Government also gave a commitment that the average levy rate of 2.4 per cent of payroll to be paid by all employers would remain as a fixed maximum levy for the first five years. While employers are still paying this average 2.4 per cent levy, the true cost of this scheme is closer to 5 per cent of the payroll. While the full effect of the shortfall will take a number of years to develop completely, the first substantial impact could be as early as the current financial year, when WorkCare may run short of the money required to meet its claims payments. On current trends, WorkCare will continue to lose approximately $700m each year. A recent independent review of WorkCare which has come into my possession says: If the Government maintains its commitment to both a 2.4% maximum average levy rate for the first 5 years and full funding over 10 years, and makes no further changes to the system, we estimate that the average levy rate for the second five years will be 7.1% of payroll. WorkCare has not yet produced its annual report for 1987-88. However, I have a copy of parts of the third draft of the report. The draft claims that there has been an improvement in the scheme's financial position in 1987-88 but says that, despite this: . . . it cannot be concluded that the scheme is now on target to achieve its primary financial objective of full funding at 2.4% of remuneration over its first 10 years of operation. That would have to be the understatement of the year. Apart from these statistics, which paint a clear picture of financial disaster, there is also a very unhealthy smell surrounding the operations of WorkCare. This applies to its ethics, its integrity and its lack of managerial competence. It is of the very essence of any acceptable compensation scheme that the various parties to the scheme be completely at arm's length and independent of one another. Apart from the ethics involved and the need to ensure that there are not conflicts of interest, the secrecy provisions of the WorkCare legislation are such as to require arm's length operations as well. It is therefore a matter of considerable concern that the company which is probably the leading agency in Victoria acting on behalf of the Accident Compensation Commission, namely Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd, appears to have a financial interest in an investigation company named Probe Investigations Pty Ltd. Material in my possession indicates that, at least until very recently, Probe has been carrying out the vast majority of investigations for Mercantile Mutual. Indeed, in certain areas, namely, Bendigo and Shepparton, I am advised that Probe carries out all the investigations for Mercantile Mutual. In addition, Mercantile Mutual has an associate company, Corporate Safety and Health Services Pty Ltd, to which it makes direct referrals. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Mercantile Mutual is referring people to Corporate Safety and Health Services on the basis of information gained by virtue of being a WorkCare agency. This is a matter that requires urgent investigation. I am amazed that the Accident Compensation Commission has not conducted such an investigation as yet. On the face of it, interlinked operations of this nature appear to involve major conflicts of interest. They raise major questions of ethics and business morality and they also involve questions of legality under the existing WorkCare legislation. There are many other things that I wanted to say about WorkCare, but time has prevented me. Let me give just one example of the extraordinary lack of financial controls existing in WorkCare at the moment. I have in my possession a copy of a cheque dated 29 August 1988 paid by WorkCare to a doctor for services rendered. Fortunately, he is an honest doctor, so he returned the cheque. I say `fortunately' because that cheque was written out for an amount of $290,788. How on earth could such a mistake occur? It could not have occurred if basic financial procedures were being followed. The Cain Government has brought the State of Victoria to the brink of financial disaster. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(4.30) —Senator Short has given a sweeping survey of the present workers compensation system. No doubt he wants to return to the one which introduced the need for reform. He wants to take the Metal Trades Industry Association back to the sorts of premiums which I am about to quote. I will quote what the Metal Trades Industry Association had to say about the old scheme, about the sorts of premiums that were charged under the scheme that no doubt Senator Alston and Senator Short want to go back to. A table put out by the Association shows that the premium in 1982-83 was $260,000. The annual wages for that year were $2,200,000. In the following year, under the scheme that Senator Alston wants us to go back to and that Senator Short wants in this form, the premium for company A was $1,130,000. The annual wage bill was $1,850,000. The premium increase was 334 per cent. Senator Short said that 2.4 per cent was not the real figure, it was something more like 4 or 5 per cent. Let us say that it was. We say that the maximum premium paid by any employer is 2.4 per cent; that is what it is now. This is the sort of scheme that Senator Alston and Senator Short have advocated we will return to. Breweries in Victoria under the old scheme that we have been asked to return to paid 24.51 per cent of their wages bill in premiums. They pay almost 25 per cent of their wages bill in premiums. Engineering industries pay 19.47 per cent; meatworks, 37.66 per cent; pastoralists, 15.72 per cent; farm and agriculture, just over 11 per cent; and sawmills and planing mills, 28.36 per cent. This WorkCare scheme has introduced a fall in premiums from those horrible levels-I will tell honourable senators why they are horrible in a minute-down to 2.4 per cent. No doubt the Opposition is speaking for Jeff Kennett and if he wins on Saturday-as always, that is a possibility-the Opposition wants us to go back to the situation where a terrible and crippling cost is placed on Victorian industry. We say 2.4 per cent. I do not know what Senator Cook has heard. Mr Elliott runs a brewery and it wants to charge him 24.5 per cent as distinct from what this Government is charging-2.4 per cent. It wants to charge the meatworks 37.6 per cent, compared with our 2.4 per cent. Senator Short —Where are these figures from? Senator COONEY —These are figures provided by the Insurance Council of Australia and the Accident Compensation Corporation of New Zealand. We give the New Zealand figures to compare with what was being charged in Victoria. Since Senator Short has raised that matter I say that, while we were charging breweries 24.5 per cent, New Zealand was charging 1.45 per cent, and so on. Yet here we have the Opposition-speaking on behalf of Jeff Kennett I presume-wanting to go back to a situation where there will be such ruinous impositions placed on Victorian industry which will take it back to the days when the Liberals were in power. Does the Opposition want to hear about the great record? This is private business investment under the previous Liberal Government. Each year private business investment increases by a certain amount. It is measured in percentages. In the 10 years before the Cain Government came to power the percentage increase each year-that is, the extra amount that was put into private investment in Victoria-was 0.3 per cent compared with 2.1 per cent for the rest of Australia. The Cain Government came into power-that is, the supposed socialist hordes-and the figure goes up each year to the projected estimate this year of 12.8 per cent compared with the projected estimate for the rest of Australia of 4.7 per cent. Here we have it. It was 0.3 per cent under the Liberals, of whom Jeff Kennett is an eminent member. I am talking about private investment, not the public sector. Part of the reason for that increase is the sensible approach that this Government has taken to workers compensation. The other point I want to talk about concerning workers compensation, which has been roundly criticised today, is that this was a package-I will come to the package-which we had to get through the Victorian Parliament at a time when fortuitous circumstances were such that we had power in the upper House. It only occurred for a short period. We would not have got this reform through if the Liberals and the National Party had been in power. They would have resisted the package which was won and that was workers compensation, the payment of money. Secondly, it included safety legislation to make sure that workers in the factories were not ground down and made victims of unfenced machinery, slippery floors or over-heavy loads imposed upon them-those accidents which impose so terribly not only on the economic well-being of the State but on the social well-being of the people who live there. That great safety reform would have been resisted. The fewer accidents we have the less compensation we will have. That great safety reform was got through at a time when the Liberals were not in a position to effectively resist it. At the same time, there was a move towards rehabilitation. This is the criticism of the scheme which the Opposition makes. No doubt, arising from that criticism there will be a lessening of the safety provisions, of the rehabilitation that has been brought in with this WorkCare program as a proper package to help not only the economic situation of the State or the industry which flourishes there-I have shown how it flourishes-but the continuing need to make sure that workers do not become victims of unsafe work practices. Apparently from what we can gather here today, the Opposition intends, speaking on behalf of Jeff Kennett and the Victorian Liberals, not only to throw aside that exciting reduction in premiums but also to lessen the safety provisions and the rehabilitation schemes. Senator Short —It is bankrupting the State. Senator COONEY —Senator Short says that we bankrupted the State. He no doubt gets those words from the-- Senator Short —Who was the architect of the WorkCare scheme? Senator COONEY —Senator Short should just listen to this. He is taking his headlines from the Australian. I am indebted to Senator Maguire who pointed this article out to me. The headline in the Weekend Australian says, `Victorian debt burden nation's worst'. It is a very bold headline in the Weekend Australian and it is there for all the world to see. It is followed up in Monday's Australian with the headline `States must account for debt profligacy'. It takes every State except New South Wales to task. In this very indignant editorial of Monday, 26 September 1988, it takes to task the Victorian Government. On page 2 of the Australian on Tuesday, buried well down where it cannot be noticed-I thank Senator Maguire for pointing this out to me-appears the headline `Victorian debt correction'. The article states: An article in The Weekend Australian which used several different measures of the debt burdens of the States made a mistake in reporting one of Victoria's ratios-that of gross debt as a percentage of gross State product. The correct position, that Victoria had the second lowest debt burden- the second lowest, not the highest- of the four States measured using this ratio, was shown in a table on page 8 of the same issue. It made a very weak-willed effort to correct this statement. Senator Alston and Senator Short saw this article and said, `This gives us great scope for running a matter of public importance on Wednesday to help our good friend in the State, Jeff Kennett. We will run it. We will use the Australian'. Of course, they read the Weekend Australian. They read Monday's Australian. I think that we have to extend sympathy to them because it is not their fault but the fault of the Australian for showing this correction in such a poor place. Those honourable senators forgot the correction. They shot themselves in the foot. They brought on this matter of public importance without reading Tuesday's Australian. It is most unfortunate. The material they have got no doubt is all from the Australian. Unfortunately they did not read it all. I say for the third time that I am indebted to Senator Maguire for pointing this out. The other thing I am indebted to Senator Maguire for pointing out, yet again, is that in regard to employment-not a thing that concerns Jeff Kennett but of concern for those of us who have some sort of compassion for our fellows in society-Victoria has had the lowest unemployment rate in Australia for 63 months. Therefore, people have a better chance of getting a job in Victoria than elsewhere. Honourable senators opposite then turned, with some sort of desperate futility, to the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. The reality is that the great success story of that development corporation can be illustrated to have occurred under the Minister Robert Fordham. Honourable senators opposite have talked about Wallace International Ltd, the pharmaceutical company. I will come back to that company. However, what about Australian NC. Automation Pty Ltd at Bayswater in Victoria? That company employs approximately 75 to 80 persons. I refer also to Little Desert Tours in Nhill, the Colonial Motor Inn at Halls Gap, Monsbent Pty Ltd at Benalla-which is Australia's latest and most modern chipboard factory. Companies in the country, as well as in the city, are being supported. I refer also to Hickory Fashions Pty Ltd at Burwood. They are all success stories. The reality of the situation concerning the Wallace pharmaceutical company, which honourable senators opposite have clawed so desperately to in their remarks, is that the role of the Minister in that has been everything that could be expected of an honourable and dedicated Minister. Not only is he dedicated, may I say, to proper administration-there is no doubt about that-but also he is dedicated to keeping Victoria the foremost economic State in the Commonwealth. He deserves great praise for what he has done. He has been part of that great economic success which is Victoria and which I illustrate again by referring to figures I have already cited for private business investment. May I say in passing also that in looking at country Victoria there has been a 75 per cent increase in exports from Victoria. Farming product in Victoria last year was worth $4.4 billion. That production has doubled over five years. The other thing honourable senators opposite have spoken about is Victorian transport. Victorian transport matters presently are part of the portfolio of one of Victoria's and, indeed, Australia's, most outstanding Ministers, Mr Kennan. He has a policy which has led to all sorts of things. For example, he has extended the Preston tram service to Bundoora. He has extended bus services and has given travel concessions. He has a plan for the future to make public transport better and more comfortable. Rolling stock has been replaced. Everybody agrees that things are going well. On the other hand, the Liberal Party policy is to start by sacking 7,000 people. Senator Cook —How many? Senator COONEY —Seven thousand. That is only in the transport industry. I ask honourable senators whether they know what industrial relations have been like in Victoria under Labor? There has been a reduction of 80 per cent in industrial disputes since Labor came to power. In the building industry there has been a reduction of 88 per cent. Next Saturday, if unfortunately the Liberals win government, Victoria will be returned to the era when there was 0.3 per cent private investment, strikes were the order of the day and there was nothing but conflict and conflagration. People gave that away. Not only did private enterprise-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(4.45) —The Senate is debating a matter of public importance in the following terms: The serious burden to the national economy imposed by the extraordinarily high levels of public debt in Victoria, the onerous burden of Victorian State taxes and charges and the gross mismanagement of the Victorian economy as exemplified by the $2.1 billion unfunded liabilities of WorkCare, the horrendous losses approaching $1 billion per annum of the State transport system and the hundreds of millions of dollars put at risk by the bungled investment policies of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. It is a feature of Labor governments that they borrow recklessly to pay for current waste and leave it to future generations to pay their debts. This is happening with the Federal Government where Australia's gross overseas debt is more than $100,000m, making us the third most indebted country in the world. Interest payments alone on this massive debt are taking about one-third of our export income. We will go into overseas debt by a further $10 billion this year under the gross mismanagement of the Hawke Labor Government. This interest burden which we have to meet will increase still further. Worse still, the Hawke Labor Government, although it talks a great deal about its economic skills, in fact has taken no effective step to correct the problems of our economy. Our inflation rate is still more than double that of our trading competitors. If our productivity is rising at all-for four successive years it did not rise at all-it is rising much more slowly than that of our competitors. Our interest rates are much higher than those of our competitors. Almost certainly they are being held down artificially and very unscrupulously by the Federal Government until the Victorian State election and the Oxley by-election are over, at which time they will jump again. It is a most disturbing picture, the full impact of which has not yet come home to the Australian public. However, it does explain why Mr Keating, a couple of years ago, was runner-up for the title of World's Worst Treasurer. The same situation is occurring in Victoria. The statement we are discussing sets out some of the ways in which Victoria's resources are being recklessly wasted. In order to finance its wasteful expenditure, for instance, the Cain Labor Government has sold off $600m worth of rail transport rolling stock. It spent this money recklessly, as I said, and will leave future generations with having to lease the equipment back. Look at the figures. The Government sold rolling stock for $600m. It will spend $1,200m over the next five years leasing it back. It is both a reckless waste and gross financial mismanagement. Some of the other things the Cain Labor Government has done in Victoria have involved sales of other assets, such as land reserved for freeways. It has sold assets worth more than $1,000m. What did the Government do with the money it raised? It did not use the money to reduce the State's indebtedness. The Government used it for current expenditure. In particular, it had to spend the money on paying the interest on the debts it had already incurred. If we wish to build freeways in the future, the Victorian taxpayers will have to buy back that land that the State Government so recklessly sold. Let us look at some other expenditures and examples of economic mismanagement. There has been quite a lot of talk about WorkCare. Let us look at some simple figures. WorkCare lost $1.7 billion in the first 22 months of operation. Even with the changes proposed by the Cain Government it will have no assets at all by 1992. Government superannuation schemes have unfunded, vested liabilities of $6,000m. The new compulsory third party insurance scheme lost $100m in its first six months of operation. During the current campaign the Cain Labor Government has made $750m worth of promises which were not funded in the Budget. These are just examples of disastrous financial mismanagement by the Cain Labor Government. The Government admits that the net State debt in Victoria is now $24,000m and it has more than doubled in the six years since Labor came to power. The present debt in Victoria is the equivalent of $5,519 for every man, woman and child in Victoria, and that is what the Government admits. The only area in which the Cain Labor Government has been creative has been in creative accounting. Most observers think the State debt is very substantially more than the figures admitted by the Labor Government. And, of course, interest payments on this debt have to be met. By whom? By the Victorian taxpayers, of course. State taxation has more than doubled in the seven years that the Cain Labor Government has been in office; it has actually gone up by 139 per cent. If honourable senators opposite think that is misleading because of inflation, State taxation has increased in real terms in the seven years of the Cain Labor Government by 41.4 per cent. Victorians now pay more in State taxes per head of population than the residents of any other State. One of the worst aspects of the Cain Labor Government's administration is where the money has been going. It has primarily been going into jobs for the boys, into increased public sector employment. Between March 1984 and March 1988-the latest figures available-the increases in government employment in Victoria were three times the national average. That is where the State taxes are going. They are going into jobs for the boys. Another of the worst aspects of the mismanagement of the Cain Labor Government's administration has been public transport. Despite billions of dollars having been poured into the public transport system, it suffers continuously from industrial disruption. Management is in turmoil, the trains in Melbourne are dirty and often unsafe, the service is unreliable and patronage levels are static or declining. I give just two statistics: over the five years to 1985-86 revenue from Victoria's rail system in real terms fell by 13 per cent, but expenditure grew by 47 per cent. So revenue has gone down and expenditure has gone up or, to put it another way, Victoria's level of cost recovery-the user pays principle which the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, was very keen on when he spoke a few minutes ago-fell from 52 per cent in 1980-81, when the Liberal Government was in power, to 30 per cent in 1985-86. Senator Maguire —So you would put up transport fees, would you? Senator HAMER —I want a more efficient transport system so that we do not have to put up the fares. We have a thoroughly inefficient feather-bedded system. One of the worst aspects has been this: the transport system loses more than $1,000m a year through bad work practices and gross feather-bedding-aspects which the Cain Labor Government is not prepared to tackle. It governs not in the interests of Victorian travellers but at the direction of militant unions. An efficient transport system is essential to a State's economic performance. If a transport system is inefficient and expensive, costs rise throughout the economy, industries become less competitive and employment drops. The idea that employment can be created by feather-bedding in a key area like transport is economic lunacy. Let us look at a couple of examples of feather-bedding or restrictive practices on our Melbourne city trains. Everyone knows that the guards, sitting at the rear of the train, are contributing nothing and have been contributing nothing for years. Yet the Government is not prepared to get rid of them. When it was suggested that there might be a window in the guard's compartment so that the guard could at least see what was going on in the carriage, the idea was rejected on the grounds that that would interfere with the privacy of the guard. Why will the Government not get rid of the guards? Everyone knows that they are not needed. The unions will not let it. I think ours will be the last significant rail system in the world to introduce automatic ticket vending machines on railway stations. Why have we been so slow in Victoria? Because the unions would not let them be installed, of course, and the Government was too weak to do anything about it. The feather-bedding and overmanning, of course, cost money-money that could be either saved or diverted to more useful purposes, such as increased security on the trains or increased security at the stations. One of the reasons why train travel is not more popular-I have pointed out that we have declining patronage and that revenue and cost recovery are going down-is a fear of violence while on the trains or a fear of arriving late at night at a poorly lit and deserted railway station. Personally-I emphasise that this is a personal view-I would like to see the suburban rail system changed so that wherever possible railway stations are leased out to an all-night shopping system such as Seven-Eleven Food Stores, which is very keen to have sites where there is both parking and a flow of people. If that could be provided people would not worry so much about arriving at the station, as they would arrive at a well lit shopping centre. Then there is the question of reliability. Every time there is a rail strike, potential passengers are lost forever because they are not prepared to risk being stranded again. We must declare public transport an essential service to overcome the absurd situation of passenger rail services in Melbourne being constantly disturbed by strikes and bans-at least 18 times in the last 18 months. The Government has even directed the stopping of public announcements that particular trains are cancelled, because there are too many of them. We simply cannot allow the people of Victoria to be held to ransom by people employed by the public to provide a service, and a sensible government would negotiate no-strike provisions with public sector unions for all or part of their awards. The Victorian public should not have to tolerate the type of industrial thuggery to which it has been subjected because of the climate of lawlessness which the Cain Government has created with its industrial relations policy over the last six years. It is not only trains that the Cain Government runs so inefficiently. The Victorian Government's own reports show that private operators can run buses of equivalent standards for 30 to 50 per cent less than the government buses; yet the Government, for doctrinaire reasons, will not get out of the area in which it performs extremely badly. It has been assessed that if overmanning and inefficiency were eliminated from the metropolitan transport system $110m could be saved in the first year and $300m in the fourth year. This would be done chiefly by getting rid of feather-bedded positions in public transport. While pouring money down the drain in the Government's inefficient rail, tram and bus services, roads have been very seriously neglected. The Cain Government has not had one major new road initiative. Grants for essential roadworks have been severely cut in real terms. Many rural councils are tearing up paved surfaces to return them to gravel and urban arterial roads are desperately clogged, as I am sure many people in Melbourne will now be experiencing. The hang-up of Mr Cain in particular about freeways is notorious. It even reached the absurdity that a road to link two freeways was deliberately designed with traffic lights so that the Government could say that it was not building freeways, they were just arterial roads. The whole performance of the Cain Labor Government in transport has been deplorable. It has been badly directed and recklessly wasteful. An entirely new approach is needed. In fact, what is needed is an entirely new government which will really serve the interests of all Victorians, not just those of a few anti-freeway fanatics and militant unions. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(5.00) —This matter of public importance refers to the alleged mismanagement of the Victorian economy and the alleged effect on the national economy, in itself a tenuous claim even if we forget-as the Opposition both here and in my own State of Victoria would like us to forget-that the bulk of the nation's foreign debt is private sector debt. The debate is not really about the economy but is an attempt to snow the Victorian electorate with pseudo-economics and pseudo-accounting, as we have heard today. This attempt is seen as necessary because most Victorians are aware that they are better off, economically and socially, as a result of six years of the Cain Labor Government than they were in the long years of Liberal or coalition rule, in spite of the changed economic circumstances in the world. The Victorian Liberal Party and the Victorian National Party-which, of course, are not in coalition and never will be if Jeff Kennett has his way-are raising spectres of economic mismanagement very often based on statistics which are selected so as not to represent the true position, as Senator Button and Senator Cooney have already pointed out. Those parties are raising these spectres or red herrings in order to hide the fact that Victorians of all ages and from all sections of the community have been doing very well under a Labor government and most voters are old enough to be able to make a comparison with what prevailed under previous conservative governments, and goodness knows, we have had enough of those in Victoria. They were in office at a time when the world economy was in a much healthier state than it is in now. I want to tell the Senate about some of the ways in which the Cain Labor Government has assisted Victoria to become the State with the lowest unemployment rate in Australia, a high international credit rating, the healthiest rural economy in Australia, a very healthy secondary industry sector and a quality of life which is second to none. I shall deal first with some facts which relate directly to the reason for Victoria's healthy economy and its effects on ordinary people, workers and consumers; then I shall come to some of the ways in which the quality of life of Victorians has improved in the years since 1982. Honourable senators have already heard from Senator Button and Senator Cooney the facts about the economy, and I would just like to add a few pieces of evidence to what they said. Under the Cain Labor Government the Corporate Affairs Office has concentrated its resources on investigations. An investigations and insolvency task force has been established within the Corporate Affairs Office. This is very important because an ethical economy is as important as a strong economy. The confiscation of profits legislation has been introduced to allow courts to confiscate or freeze the ill-gotten gains of prisoners. The Crimes (Computers) Act ensures that various computer and credit card frauds are now covered by the criminal law in our State. The maximum penalties for secret commission and bribery offences have been increased from two years to 10 years. That is something that the Queensland Government might benefit from looking at. A close liaison has been established between the Corporate Affairs Office and the Victoria Police to fight company fraud. Persons repeatedly associated with company failures are now prohibited from taking part in the management of companies and their names are listed at the Corporate Affairs Office as a warning to others. Victoria has a very healthy rural economy and is expanding its rural exports, including finding new markets for such things as fresh grapes in the European winter. The Cain Labor Government is maximising the contribution of agriculture to the Victorian economy, making agriculture more efficient and more sustainable. The gross value of rural production in Victoria is now a record $4.4 billion, double what it was five years ago. Forty per cent of Victoria's export earnings comes from agricultural commodities. Victoria is also tackling the problem of land degradation in a very realistic way. The Cain Government has been at the forefront of tackling salinity and that strategy recognises that salinity is not a problem which can be solved by governments alone. There must be a joint effort involving many sectors of the community. In the last four years some $60m has been spent and over the next five years $100m will be spent in fighting salinity in Victoria, which of course has implications for the other States in the Murray Basin. Housing and construction is a very important part of the Victorian economy. Over the past six years an additional 16,700 units have been added to the stock of public housing. This represents an increase of 45 per cent over the period, a major improvement by any reckoning. This activity in public housing construction is only part of the story. Building in the private sector is also in a very healthy condition. A glance at the cranes on the skyline of Melbourne reveals evidence of that. But the private housing sector is also very healthy and will be assisted further by the recently announced stamp duty concessions for first home buyers. All first home buyers who are eligible for the Commonwealth first home owners scheme, who have dependent children and who purchase a house costing up to $100,000, will benefit by receiving a full exemption from stamp duty on the property transfer and on the associated mortgage duty. The maximum benefit will be about $2,500. This initiative, of course, has social as well as economic benefits, because it will provide financial support to eligible families at a critical time and assist families to move from rental accommodation to home ownership-something I thought that the Opposition would be very keen to see. Consumer legislation is very important to a healthy economy which does not exploit consumers. Throughout the Government's last term a series of Acts was passed to protect consumers. Some examples of these are the Credit Act which ensures that consumers do not suffer from excessive interest rate increases or inappropriate documentation. Under the Act credit providers will have to behave in an ethical way or they will not be licensed to provide further credit. The Fair Trading Act provides protection from unfair and deceptive business practices. It protects against misleading advertising and unethical conduct by traders. The Housing Guarantee Act provides a guarantee for all new homes and renovations carried out by approved builders. Anyone in this place or elsewhere who has experienced building or renovating a house will know just how important that is. The Cain Labor Government in Victoria is also making sure that the unemployment rate continues to fall and that a supply of skilled labour is assured for the future. One way of doing this is through the creation of additional training positions. In February 1985 the Victorian Premier promised 5,000 additional training places in Victoria at the end of his Government's second term in office, as part of the Youth Guarantee. In fact, more than 12,000 new positions were created in Victoria from March 1985 to June 1988. This Youth Guarantee commitment is very important to the young people concerned and to their families and as a source of future skilled labour. In 1985 there were less than 37,000 training positions. Today there are 50,000. As a former student counsellor, very much concerned in careers counselling and helping young people to find jobs, I know just how important that is. I shall now give a few facts about transport. At the outset I should say that, unlike some Opposition Victorian senators who displayed obvious ignorance about public transport in Victoria, I am a frequent traveller on public transport. As I live close to the city I tend to use public transport rather than drive if I am travelling within the inner city area. Honourable senators will remember that transport is one of the areas mentioned in this matter of public importance. But it is totally unrealistic and biased to talk about the cost of transport without mentioning the benefits to the traveller and also to the community in safety, through fewer motor accidents, in reduced atmospheric pollution, and in reduced social costs and savings in servicing private vehicle transport. These are some of the benefits which Victoria has gained under the Cain Labor Government. More people now use public transport. The figures that were given by Senator Hamer were distorted by the fact that the time that he dealt with included two years of conservative rule. He started with figures which were far too early to talk about what the Cain Labor Government has done. This greater use of public transport reflects better service, higher safety levels and more comfortable travel. The previous conservative Government had in fact reduced services. On the line on which I lived there were no Sunday services. The stations were unstaffed after 8 o'clock at night, so women in particular and children did not use trains. Since the last year of conservative administration there has been a 14 per cent increase in patronage on metropolitan transport. In the same period there has been a 57 per cent growth in V-Line patronage, that is, transport outside the metropolitan area. More people are now using a better system, and I have personal knowledge of that. Concessional travel has been extended by the present Government to supporting parent beneficiaries, to widows of World War I veterans, and to sickness and special beneficiaries. Concessions for students and the unemployed have also been improved. The service has been improved by restoring services to some lines which had been closed by the previous Government, by the upgrading of vehicles of all sorts, by extending services in the outer metropolitan area, and by increasing efficiency. Ninety-two per cent of trains now run on time. This is very important to those who are using trains to travel to work. One ticket now takes a passenger on all forms of transport and fare increases have been less than increases in the consumer price index. Related to transport is the question of road funding, an issue which has been substantially fudged by the Opposition both here and in Victoria. The facts are that the level of road funding in Victoria has increased by 16.5 per cent in real terms since 1983 and allocations for urban arterial roads, which carry the bulk of the traffic in Victoria, have increased in real terms by 14.5 per cent. All this has been done in a period when the transport share of Budget outlays has fallen from 9.8 per cent to 7.1 per cent. The public transport deficit has declined in real terms, whereas it grew under the previous Liberal Government. I now come to education, which will lead, if I have time, to some of the quality of life issues I referred to earlier. The Cain Labor Government introduced in last year's Budget an education expense allowance, providing $60 for children aged 5 to 15 years. In the 1988 Budget this was raised to $100 per child and extended to cover children up to 16 years of age. In Victoria there is also a long-standing benefit, which has been greatly extended from that provided under previous governments of a maintenance allowance which is available as a separate allowance to those who are eligible for the family allowance supplement. This has been increased by 22.1 per cent since 1982. The allowance has been extended to cover all students under the age of eligibility for Austudy. Under the previous Government the allowance covered only secondary students. A very good indicator of what has happened in education in Victoria is the increased retention rate for all post-primary schools, which will reach around 72 per cent by 1991. It is worth noting that, unlike other States, in Victoria the retention rate in government schools is close to that in non-government schools. I think this is an indicator of the very high standard of government schools in Victoria. Again, I have personal knowledge of that as a parent and as a teacher. Most people now recognise the importance of preschool education. By the end of 1988, 97 per cent of children in Victoria will be in preschool education. Finally, in my last minute I would like to mention something which is of very great concern to women in particular, that is, the matter of domestic violence. This is a community concern which is becoming evident in the whole Australian community. The Victorian Government has an excellent record in legislation and other action in this area. For example, it is now possible to get intervention orders to impose a wide range of restrictions on perpetrators, including prohibition of access to the victims' home or workplace. Since 1 December last year 1,600 of those orders have been issued. Police are now empowered to seize firearms belonging to a perpetrator of family violence. The Victorian Government is funding an extensive education program on this. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.16) —The basic responsibility of State governments is to manage effectively State public finances. Today the Senate is debating the following matter of public importance: The serious burden to the national economy imposed by the extraordinarily high levels of public debt in Victoria, the onerous burden of Victorian State taxes and charges and the gross mismanagement of the Victorian economy as exemplified by the $2.1 billion unfunded liabilities of Workcare, the horrendous losses approaching $1 billion per annum of the State transport system and the hundreds of millions of dollars put at risk by the bungled investment policies of the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. As a Victorian it appals me to see what seven years of government by the Cain Labor Party has done to our State finances. It has, in effect, bankrupted our State while concealing the real situation by clever media manipulation. That is one thing that that Government is clever at-media manipulation. In the meantime, it has ignored the basics-the management of State public finances. It has ignored the problems on the roads and the problems with supply of water and power. They are the basic matters that State governments should apply their minds to. I have no doubt that the people sitting in their cars, clogged on our roads in Victoria at present, will agree that this Government has not been applying its mind to that basic matter. What has happened under the Cain Government? After seven Labor Budgets we have had expenditure at an increased annual average rate of 3 per cent per annum every year in real terms. I ask the people of Victoria: Do you feel any better off as a result of that after seven Labor Budgets? Victorian per capita expenditure has increased from $1,508 in 1981-82 to $2,832 in 1988-89-an increase of 14 per cent in real terms. Do Victorians feel any better off because of the increased expenditure? I doubt it. And why? It is because this money has been spent on increasing State public employment; it has not been spent for the benefit of the people. The Government is employing more people; not spending the money on the roads, the water, the power and other things that people want it spent on. There has been an explosion in State public employment under the Cain Labor Government in Victoria and there has been a rapid and substantial increase in State debt. For example, this year, the Victorian Government has budgeted for a deficit of over $1,000m, which is equal to 8.7 per cent of total State outlays. Around 65 per cent of State Budget outlays are in labour costs or labour related costs: 65 per cent of the Budget goes in that direction. Victorian State public employment has grown at treble the rate of other Australian governments. Between March 1984 and March of this year the increase in Victoria was 10.5 per cent; the Commonwealth increase in public employment was 2.5 per cent. We now have a debt servicing crisis in Victoria. The proportion of revenue from State sources needed to meet interest commitments has increased from 15.4 per cent when the Cain Government came to office to 21.6 per cent this year, despite huge increases in State revenue. The Government is now borrowing to pay interest on previous borrowings and we now have record taxes and charges in Victoria. State taxation has more than doubled in the seven years that Cain Labor has been in office. State taxation has in fact increased by 41.4 per cent in real terms. Victorians now pay more in State taxes per head of population than the residents of any other State. In Victoria this year-1987-88-the figure is $1,081 actual and $1,162 has been budgeted for next year. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time for discussion of the matter of public importance has now expired. Senator ALSTON(Victoria) —by leave-In the adjournment debate last evening, Senator Cook referred to me in terms which suggested that he intended to refer to my colleague and friend Senator Grant Chapman. I do not know whether Senator Cook has had an opportunity to peruse the Hansard, but it seems clear that that is what he had in mind. He talked in terms of having expected to hear from Senator Chapman. He then went on to speculate about people distancing themselves from my actions. I do not for one moment shrink from being associated with Senator Chapman, and indeed I am more than happy to support him. I think what Senator Cook had in mind was somehow to be critical of me-but it was on an incorrect basis. So, I certainly wish to clarify that matter. More importantly, Senator Cook in this place and, indeed, the honourable member for McMillan, Mr Cunningham, in another place, impugned my motives in suggesting that my remarks in relation to the Morwell Migrant Resource Centre were not motivated by a desire to ascertain the truth in relation to the accounting irregularities and improper practices which have characterised the recent operations of the board of management of that centre. The fact is that I was at pains to point out that the board of management was engaging in a series of highly dubious practices, such as the payment of large amounts of cash under the guise of travel expenses, the ghosting of payments to cleaners in fictitious names, and many other matters which have been the subject of a confidential report by a Commonwealth auditor. I want to make it clear that I was attempting to do no more than present the facts as they emanate from that report. I do not accept the remarks about my motivation. Despite the Minister's fulminations and the desperate efforts of the honourable member for McMillan to cover up the matter, my statements have today been corroborated in the most telling way. The Austrian, German and Greek communities in the Morwell area have all dissociated their organisations from the centre, and their representatives have resigned from the board of management. I regard this as a vindication of the courageous and correct stand taken by the Liberal candidate for Morwell, Mr Norm Olsen, and I am very pleased that I have had this opportunity to clarify the position and to endorse what Mr Olsen has been saying-namely, that there is an urgent need for a public inquiry and for the release of that auditor's report so that it can be well understood that in fact a number of gross irregularities need to be cleaned up and that it is simply not good enough for local members of parliament to pretend that there is nothing wrong with the situation. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources) —by leave-I am indebted to Senator Alston for pointing out that in the dying hours of the adjournment debate last night, I apparently-and I accept his word for it-inadvertently referred to him instead of Senator Grant Chapman. I stand corrected; I accept the correction, and I hope that the record will be corrected to show that what I was referring to was the business venture of Senator Chapman, in seeking registration as an agent for the business migration scheme and to the fact that I believe that this is an inappropriate thing for a senator to do. I believe that that is the judgment that the community will make. I was surprised that none of the honourable senator's colleagues had taken the opportunity in the adjournment debate to stand and distance themselves from the actions of Senator Chapman. But now Senator Alston associates himself with Senator Chapman, which, I guess, is a confirmation of the conflict of interest in which Senator Chapman is obviously engaged in seeking such a registration. Senator Hill —You are being misleading again now. Senator COOK —In my view, it is an obvious conflict of interest. I accept the correction-I was referring to Senator Chapman. As to the second matter that Senator Alston has raised concerning Mr Barry Cunningham, MHR, I do not accept that one is entitled to impugn his integrity in relation to this or any other matter. I know him to be a man of considerable integrity. I said last night that I thought that normally a courtesy extended in this Parliament is to advise a member of the other place or of this chamber if he is going to be referred to in a debate in the way in which the honourable member for McMillan was referred to last night. Despite what Senator Alston has said, it is still not clear whether that courtesy was observed in the case of Barry Cunningham. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.26) —I move- That the Senate take note of the paper. This report of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Welfare Trust Fund and the annual report of the Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund-which was listed yesterday in the daily Order of Business in the Senate, but not reached-make very telling reading for anyone who is concerned about the problems faced by our defence personnel and their families. I want to take a little time of the Senate to ensure that honourable senators understand what the purposes of these trust funds are. The Royal Australian Air Force Trust Fund report states that they are: . . . to assist and alleviate need amongst serving members and their families, through grants and interest-free loans. The RAAF trustees have reported that they have found a continuing problem of making the loans viable in their purchasing power, due to inflationary trends. What is quite worrying is that the total for loans approved was $1,672,548 in 1987 compared to $1,091,738 in 1986. That represents a growth of 65 per cent in relation to need in the Royal Australian Air Force. Is it any wonder that this is the case when we have the pressures facing our defence families, who need wage justice and who need care and leadership from the Government of this country? We have servicemen posted to the other side of Australia. In many cases their families are neglected, to the extent that when family emergencies occur they are thousands of miles away, and they are given no assistance in relation to getting together to cope with situations that have arisen. I am reminded of Navy wives who have said to me that their husbands can get back to a funeral for, say, their father because the Navy will help, but that the Navy, or perhaps it is the Government, does not care if the father of a Navy wife dies in Melbourne and that wife cannot afford the $780 to go to his funeral. Should people who are sent to serve this country, to defend this country, be put into these situations where they cannot afford to go to the funeral of a family member because of having been sent to do their duty on the other side of the country? Even here in Canberra service personnel are being encouraged to move out of rental accommodation and to buy their own homes. That is a good idea where those people can afford it, but we have young soldiers trying to do just that, stretching themselves to the limit, although when it comes to the crunch of removal they find that the Government will not give them a penny to help them with removal costs across the suburbs of Canberra, and they can be up for another $1,500 to pay for that removal. This helps the Government through its not having to provide the temporary rental accommodation assistance or a married quarter for those personnel. The Government announced with a flourish that it would give assistance with the education tuition allowance. However, in August it was announced that the paperwork was still not through and that the claims were still being thwarted. New Zealand is addressing the problem of pay for service people, with a review of the armed forces pay, to produce a system which is more able to cope with market trends and to respond quickly to the needs of the servicemen. Our Defence Remuneration Tribunal needs more resources. The Government has failed to give it sufficient resources. I believe that the priorities in the Department of Defence need to be changed so that, first of all, a pay review, which is already a year overdue, can proceed more speedily. This is well overdue and is desperately needed by the servicemen. The service allowance, which came up last year and which did not give servicemen their fair deserts, should be reviewed quickly. The Defence Department is dragging its feet on that. Help should also be given to enable the 3 per cent increase awarded by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to go through the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal quickly. Nearly 200 determinations are awaiting attention in the Department of Industrial Relations. Some of these determinations have been waiting for nearly two years. The Government has the power to unstick immediately this bureaucratic jungle that these things are stuck in. The departments of Defence and Industrial Relations should be given their marching orders and told to get on with the job quickly. We should be ashamed to learn that so many servicemen need to go to trust funds for assistance because they are in such desperate financial difficulties due to the Government's neglect. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.31) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I refer particularly to the following statement on page 5 of the report of the 103rd session of the National Health and Medical Research Council: . . . at the request of the Minister for Health, the MREC had prepared comments on the ethical issues contained in the majority and minority reports of the above Senate Select Committee. At page 41 there is a reference to the report of the working group to consider the establishment of a national body on guidelines and research on in-vitro fertilisation. Honourable senators will recall that the Senate established the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 under the chairmanship of the now Minister for Justice, Senator Tate. That Committee met over a considerable period and heard evidence from persons, scientists, ethicists, doctors and others, as well as patients. It came to the conclusion that there should be a legislative protection for a human embryo to prevent any destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on a human embryo such as would frustrate the development of that human embryo from fertilisation onwards. In the course of that inquiry the Committee considered and rejected the National Health and Medical Research Council's property model-that is to say, the attitude of the National Health and Medical Research Council that the human embryo could be regarded as property and could be experimented on or disposed of in any way up until the fourteenth day after fertilisation. Indeed, the Family Law Council of Australia had considered and rejected the National Health and Medical Research Council's guidelines. So, two significant bodies have considered the National Health and Medical Research Council's guidelines and rejected them as being ethically invalid, as lacking scientific and ethical validity. I say `scientific validity' because the National Health and Medical Research Council said that the sheet anchor of its guidelines was the time at which implantation would normally occur. In its submission to us the Council said that that would be between nine and 13 days after fertilisation. Yet, when we asked the Council whether it had not heard of the research which proved that this took place or commenced to take place at the fifth or sixth day, it had to admit that it had not heard of the research that was contained in the Hertig and Rock publication. We then asked the National Health and Medical Research Council, `Is it not a fact that the sheet anchor on which your guidelines are established are now on shifting sands?' So it was. Yet, here we have the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) going to the body whose evidence had been rejected by two major inquiries and asking it to comment on the report of the Senate Select Committee. The Government's policy has been developed on the basis of that report. I think that is an absolute disgrace. It is an insult to the Senate. It shows how the National Health and Medical Research Council's Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) is entrenched. In fact, if the Minister had read properly not only the report of the Senate Select Committee but also of the Asche Committee, he would have restructured the Medical Research Ethics Committee because its guidelines are not only permissive but also scientifically and ethically invalid. We need to raise this matter again because this operation by the MREC may mean that the report of the Senate Select Committee will gather dust. I will at some future date reveal some further information as to the political operation that is being undertaken by certain members of the MREC against the Senate Select Committee's report and, indeed, against the Chairman of that Committee. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator COULTER(South Australia)(5.37) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Senate is considering a report of some of the research work which was carried out in Australia under the Medical Research Endowment Act during 1987. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to two pieces of research. The first is reported on page 41 of the report-namely the importance of hormones that excrete salt. I raise this matter because of the continuing and unfinished debate in this place on the removal of pharmaceutical benefits scheme drugs from the general to the authority only list. That debate is continuing in this place. Prominent among those drugs are the so-called ACE inhibitors. This paper refers to work which is going on in Australia on salt intake and the relation between salt intake and hypertension. The report states: When this research was started a new hormone, atrial natriuretic peptide, had just been identified. It has subsequently sequenced and synthesised. The report goes on to explain the action of this peptide. The report states: The studies undertaken have demonstrated that this hormone has potent effects. Its secretion is stimulated by excess sodium intake or retention by the body. When administered to animals in low doses it increases the excretion of salt. This effect occurs with a lower concentration in animals that are not salt loaded. Atrial peptide also has a direct effect on blood pressure, and when given by low dose infusion, causes a sustained fall in blood pressure. A significant part of this fall in blood pressure is due to interference with the action of angiotensin (another hormone that alters salt balance) on the blood vessels. One component of its effect on salt excretion is due to the inhibition of angiotensin's action on sodium reabsorption by the proximal tubule. The significance is that the ACE inhibitors are the angiotensin inhibiting substances. Here we see the identification of the role of salt in the same mechanism, clearly indicating that the effect which can be achieved by the ACE inhibitors can also be achieved much more simply and in a preventative mode by altering the salt intake in the diet. I think that bears very much on the debate which is going on in this place. Earlier today I indicated that in very many instances considerably cheaper treatments, particularly preventative treatments, could be put in place. The second aspect to which I refer appears at page 72 under the heading `The Causes of Tooth Decay'. It says, inter alia, that tooth decay is probably the most common infection in humans, while its incidence has decreased as a result of fluoridation, et cetera. I draw the Senate's attention to an article which appeared in the Canberra Times on 13 September this year in which the former principal dental officer with the New Zealand Department of Health in Auckland, Dr John Colquhoun, was reported as saying that he had conducted comparative studies of children's tooth decay in New Zealand in the 1980s in which he found that fewer fillings were required in unfluoridated areas than in fluoridated areas. He explained: My bosses in Wellington did not believe the comparison figures; said they were not typical. Dr Colquhoun said that he got out the statistics for all New Zealand school children aged 12 and 13 years from every health district in the country and the percentages were the same. His studies showed that the marked decline in dental caries attributed to fluoride had begun in the 1930s, long before the introduction of fluoride. I simply signal to the Senate that I believe that enough evidence is accumulating, which evidently is not known to people in this research work, to indicate that a thorough review of the role of fluoride in dental caries is long overdue. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.42) —This morning I had a medical researcher in my office who had not been able to receive medical research grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for a specific project. That was a beneficial project for a number of Australians-northern Australians-and people in South East Asian areas concerning malaria. He was absolutely appalled that whilst the National Health and Medical Research Council could not give funds for that purpose it could turn around and give $450,000 for a project entitled bioethical issues in the use of human foetal tissue, embryos and gametes. The principal conductor of that program was none other than Professor Peter Singer of the Monash Centre for Human Bioethics whose often published views are that the human embryo, the human foetus and indeed the newborn child have no inherent right to exist and, specifically, that a human embryo is of no more inherent worth than a lettuce. It is a disgrace that this sort of money could be spent on such a project. The Chairman of the NHMRC, Professor Lovell, has arranged with Professor Singer that institutional ethics committees' members throughout Australia should study at the Monash Bioethics Centre under this person. Furthermore, the NHMRC will not give a grant to other ethical bodies that have sought funding. This disgraceful situation needs exposing. Two months ago an event took place in Australia which will have grave implications, I believe, among the whole of mankind unless it is challenged and it will place Australia on the slippery slopes of eugenics. It has been done because of the NHMRC's permissive guidelines which were rejected by the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985 and the Asche Family Law Council Sub-Committee on Reproductive Technology. The only matter that I can deal with in the time available relates to the creation of human embryos specifically and solely for the purpose of being experimented on to their destruction; that is to say, they have been flattened to test for chromosomal abnormalities that may be caused by the microinjection technique. Honourable senators will recall the fuss that occurred in Victoria over this; yet it occurred in New South Wales. The medical doctor there indicated that he had already been undertaking these experiments in New South Wales and we discovered that the scientist in Victoria who was successful in pressurising the Victorian Government to change its legislation ended up as the scientific director of that project in New South Wales. We must take account of this matter. I remind the Senate that these guidelines have been subjected to the scrutiny of Judge Asche's Committee and the Senate Select Committee, which was chaired by Senator Tate, and they were rejected; they had no scientific or ethical validity. It is of concern to scientists whose projects have been approved but for whom there is no money available in this fund to hear that $450,000 has gone to this project. It is an extraordinarily large grant, as those of us who know a bit about research grants are aware. Generally, they are about the $10,000 to $20,000 mark. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.47) —This is the latest attack of a number made by Senator Harradine on the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-an attack directed at the means by which grants are allocated, with the clear implication that the decision made not to give grants to someone he mentioned and to give grants to other people is in some way unfair. It is an attack made in support of a view which Senator Harradine quite properly holds but it is not a universal view held within the Senate. To say that the NHMRC has some kind of perverted way of giving grants is unfair. It uses the most careful peer review methods. It is fair and careful in the way in which grants are made. This attack, one of a series, is thoroughly unfair. I want to put on record that not everyone in the Senate shares the view put forward by Senator Harradine. I know that some of my colleagues wish to speak on other papers. Therefore, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.48) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. It is most timely that consideration be given to the supplemental housing agreement between the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory. It is timely for three reasons. We should examine the poor performance of this Government in its housing policy. The current review of the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) of the Government's housing initiatives has involved a host of problems and proposals, and pressure is starting to build up on housing interest rates. I can honestly say that this Government's housing performance has been second to none in the damage inflicted against those 90 per cent of Australians who work hard to own their own home and achieve the dream of most Australians. Under this Government the cost of buying a home has nearly doubled. In 1983 the average monthly home loan repayment was $335. That was based on an average home loan of $33,000 over 25 years at an 11.5 per cent interest rate. Now, in 1988, the average home loan repayment is $620, based on a home loan of $55,000 over 25 years at an interest rate of 14.5 per cent. The Government has been able to achieve these disastrous results in only five years. Home ownership is less affordable today than it has been at any time over the last five years. The average annual disposable family income is currently $34,500, but an annual disposable income of $39,500 is needed to qualify for a loan to buy the average house. So even people on average incomes cannot afford to own an average house. That is a shocking indictment of this Government. Reductions in funding for the first home owners scheme have meant that the maximum deposit assistance for a couple with one child is now only $2,000. Under the present National-Liberal Party coalition policy this deposit gap would be eliminated for low income earners by the Commonwealth meeting the cost of mortgage insurance. This Government's housing agreement has concentrated on funding public housing-welfare housing-and cut the proportion of funds going to home ownership assistance. In 1981-82, before this Government took office, Commonwealth funding was split 46 per cent purchase assistance and 54 per cent public housing. Last year, 1986-87, it was split 27 per cent purchase assistance and 73 per cent public housing-that is, welfare housing. So the person who wants to own his own home has been swept away. The first home owners scheme has had its funding cut from $306m in 1984-85 to $222m in 1987-88, with individual grants being cut last May by $1,000. That shows the commitment this Government has to young Australians who want to achieve the Australian dream of owning their own home. It could not care less about them. It is more concerned about welfare housing. I suppose that is what one can expect when one elects a socialist government. It is no wonder, therefore, in the light of such a performance, that the Minister has called for a review of housing initiatives and has floated such proposals as a wealth tax on homes valued at over $300,000-that is disgraceful-a capital gains tax on family homes; and replacing the first home owners scheme with interest subsidies. Senator Tate —That is absolute rubbish and you know it. Senator BOSWELL —The honourable senator knows that those ideas have been floated among the Australian public. The Minister has retracted them but Senator Tate knows that they were floated. They are there and they are in the back of the Government's mind. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the provision of initial home purchase assistance is a more cost effective way of helping low income families than forcing them to be lifetime tenants in expensive, totally taxpayer funded State Government housing-welfare housing. Not most Australians but all Australians would prefer to own their own homes. This Government has been most negligent in encouraging this. Net Commonwealth payments in housing and community amenities to the States have also dropped significantly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.53) —I want to pick up the comments of my colleague Senator Boswell, who has made some very strong points about the failures of the Hawke-Keating Government's housing policies. Certainly, we have seen interest rates rising to make housing less affordable throughout the whole of Australia and particularly in Victoria. Senator Boswell made the point that there has been a greater emphasis on so-called welfare housing by the Federal Government in recent years, but even if we look at the figures in that area, we find that there has been a dramatic failure in the attempts of the Government to meet the demands not only in the whole of Australia but particularly in Victoria. In Victoria the queue of people waiting for welfare housing at the time the Cain Government came to power in 1982 was 14,260. That number has now grown to over 35,000-a 250 per cent increase under the Cain Government. That compares with a total change for the whole of the Australian community of only about 170 per cent, which on its own is bad enough. It demonstrates that the Victorian Government is even worse than any other in terms of arranging welfare housing for the most needy in the community. That is what the Cain Government has not done for Victorians and what the Keating Government has not done for Australian's generally. As Senator Boswell so ably pointed out, this Government has failed to meet even the dreams of ordinary, average Australians who are seeking to buy their own homes. They are simply being closed out of the opportunities because of rising interest rates which are now being encouraged by the Keating Government's misleading and misguided policies in fiscal affairs. I just want to repeat the main points. Whereas the Cain Government, which fortunately is going to its doom on Saturday in Melbourne-- Senator McKiernan —Do you want a bet? Senator MESSNER —Yes, I do. Quite clearly, the opportunity is there for the Victorian people to judge that Government on the basis of its housing policy. The Cain Government has failed to deliver welfare housing to the most needy in the Victorian community. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of Government papers has now expired. Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Senator Crichton-Browne: That the report be adopted. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(5.56) —I rise to speak in respect of the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, having moved the last time I spoke on this matter that the report be adopted. I remind the Senate of the content of the report and the purpose of the content. It flows first of all from a motion which was carried unanimously by the Senate, proposed by the Chairman of Senate Estimates Committee A, Senator Graham Richardson. The recommendation which was adopted by the Senate read: (a) the provisions of the resolution of the Senate dated 25 March 1982, relating to the responsibilities of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing with respect to the Estimates for the Senate, are re-affirmed; The reaffirmation is this: (b) the estimates of expenditure for the Senate to be included in the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill shall continue to be those determined by the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. In other words, the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing, on behalf of the Senate, is to make judgments as to what the amounts ought to be. That recommendation has been totally ignored by Senator Walsh. The resolution reads further: (c) if before the introduction of the Bill the Minister for Finance should, for any reason, wish to vary the details of the estimates determined by the Committee he should consult with the President of the Senate with a view to obtaining the agreement of the Committee to any variation; Senator Walsh did not consult the President of the Senate. As late as 1 August, in the first of his communications, he wrote to the President of the Senate, telling him unilaterally that the Estimates that had been arrived at pursuant to the resolution of the Senate were not satisfactory to him. It was on 1 August that we had the first indication that the estimates were not satisfactory to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), notwithstanding the fact that previously, on 20 July 1988, the officers of the Senate had discussed the Estimates with officers of the Department of Finance and had been given to believe that there were no difficulties with the amounts. The resolution goes on to say: (d) in the event of agreement not being reached between the President and the Minister, then the leader of the Government in the Senate, as a member of the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, be consulted. I have to say that the estimates were arrived at and agreed upon unanimously by a committee of which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) is a member. But, of course, inasmuch as Senator Walsh, in his capricious, arrogant and insensitive way, disregarded the views of the Senate and first corresponded in writing on 1 August, it was hardly possible for there to be consultations with Senator Button. I remind honourable senators of resolution (e) which states: (e) the Senate acknowledges that in considering any request from the Minister for Finance the Committee and the Senate would take into consideration the relevant expenditure and staffing policies of the Government of the day. In my view the proposed estimates were very much in accordance with the general guidelines and principles laid down by the Government in respect of restraint and staff numbers. They are the minimum with which this Senate chamber can function and fulfil its obligations to the electors and the Australian people unlike, I might say, from my casual observation, the expenditures in respect of the Executive, of the Government of this Parliament. It is not without consequence to note that an amount of $5m is set aside to pay for the wages of 103 security guards to protect and preserve the Ministers of this Government. Yet Senator Walsh thought it appropriate to cut significantly the bare minimum outlays which the Senate had appropriated unto itself. I conclude by quoting resolution (f): (f) in turn the Senate expects the Government of the day to take into consideration the role and responsibilities of the Senate which are not of the Executive Government and which may at times involve conflict with the Executive Government. Whenever it is necessary, and yet there is no conflict of course that the Senate is not fulfilling its obligations and its commitments. The reason that resolution is there in that form is to ensure the independence of mind of the Senate, the capacity for independent audits, independent judgments and independent resolutions by the Senate in respect of the legislation that passes through this chamber. The great concern I have is not simply for dollars and cents. It is simply for the capacity of the Senate to fulfil its obligations. It is my view, with the Budget that has been set aside by Senator Walsh on behalf of the Government, that he is wilfully and knowingly denying the Senate an opportunity to fulfil its proper obligations and functions. At a time when we have an ever pervasive, ever growing government, with ever increasing legislation being brought into this chamber, I would have thought there was an argument to be had for increasing the budget of the Senate and not decreasing it. Yet we found Senator Button, a member of the Committee and the Leader of the Government in the Senate, not raising a finger in support of the Senate. He sat as a member of the Committee and tacitly agreed to our budget. But he allowed Senator Walsh to write to the President telling the Committee that the estimates were unsatisfactory. As a member of the Cabinet and the Government he supports the reduction in expenditure available for the functioning of the Senate. In my view that imperils democracy in this country. Senator Button —Oh, come on! Senator Walters —That is exactly typical of Labor opinions. Democracy? What's that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Walters is quite right. It is not forgotten on our side of politics what has been said about the role of the Senate or the States which are represented in this place. Mr Hayden wanted to abolish the Senate and the States. What happened to Mr Hayden? Is he back in Australia or has he gone again? What did Mr Hawke say in his Boyer Lectures? He wanted to abolish the States. Of course, it is axiomatic that he would want to weaken the States House. It is with grave disappointment that I note the sort of language which was necessary in this report to unanimously record the objection that the Committee had to the cavalier way in which it was treated by Senator Walsh. In my eyes Senator Button to some extent redeems himself by being a member of the Committee and not dissenting with the report. At least he acknowledges that Senator Walsh's conduct was unacceptable to all members of the Committee and presumably in due course to the Senate. The fact of the matter is that he waited until a late date to tell us that he disagreed with our funding. He was uncompromising and insensitive to the necessities of the Senate. He chose not to consult with the Committee in the proper way as is required, nor with Senator Button or the President. We now find ourselves with a significantly reduced budget which in my view denies the Senate an opportunity to function in the way it was intended and to have a proper audit. It might suit Senator Button and the Government but I am sure it will not suit the people of Australia to have the Senate in a position where it is unable to properly audit the functions of government in the way in which it is intended we so do. It reflects very poorly on Senator Button and the Government. I hope that later on during the year when we come to Supplementary Appropriations he will use commonsense, decency and a touch of integrity to ensure that the original budget set by the Committee is reinstated to what it was previously. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.07) —I only wish to speak very briefly on this matter because of the time limits. I wish to support the view that this is a very important matter because it goes to the heart of the separation of powers which are enshrined in the Constitution between the Executive Government, the Parliament and the judiciary. Clearly, if the functions of a parliament are to be so truncated as to prevent them from being exercised by the elected representatives of the people, by the imposition of cuts in funding proposed by the Executive Government, then that is a serious interference in the constitutional authority of this place, or of the House of Representatives for that matter. I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. I believe that the Presiding Officers have exercised extraordinary restraint. After all, it was the Presiding Officers who, together with the Committee, looked at the proposed expenditure and made severe cuts in it. Rigorous examination took place by the President of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee. We had determined what was the lowest appropriation necessary to meet the non-discretionary requirements of the Senate. We had imposed severe restraint. That restraint is now currently being felt by officers of the Senate. It is not necessarily being felt by me or by any other senator just yet but it will come our way because the services that we demand in the performance of our functions as elected representatives of the people from our State will suffer. It is clear that we will have to come back when Supplementary Estimates are considered. I am sure that the Minister at the table, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), understands this matter because he has integrity and understands the Senate and its workings. I have no doubt that he will have regard to the needs of the Senate. One of the major problems was that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, imposed the cuts unilaterally. That was about two months after his department had received the Estimates. Senator Crichton-Browne —On 20 July his departmental officers were saying that there were no problems with the totals. Senator HARRADINE —That is correct, as Senator Crichton-Browne said. On 20 July, the Minister's Department stated that it had no problems with the then severely pruned estimates. It was then in the middle of August that the Minister wrote making these dramatic cuts and said that they would be in the Budget Papers. Honourable senators will realise that this has very grave implications. I feel that this really ought to be considered by the Government. The Government should consider whether this is a policy decision appropriate for it to adopt. If it considers that it is, we should have a major debate here as to the implications of the decision. Senator Crichton-Browne —I think that the Government should come clean and say what it is on about. Senator HARRADINE —Oh, no; I think the proof of the pudding will be when consideration is given to the Supplementary Estimates. I think that I shall leave the matter at that because there will be an opportunity after the Government's attitude to those Additional Estimates is known. We will know what the Government's view is. We will know whether it is the view only of Senator Walsh or, indeed, whether it is the view of the Government as a whole and thus a throwing down of the gauntlet to the Senate. We will know whether it is, indeed, an interference in a major constitutional principle of the separation of power between the Executive Government, the Parliament and the judiciary-that separation being so important to the future of our democratic nation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Aulich: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.14) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Giles: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(6.15) —I rise to express my support for Senator Durack's dissenting report to the eleventh report of the Committee of Privileges. Through the action of the Senate on 16 March the Committee was given an academic brief that avoided direct mention of what the coalition saw as the key question of privilege. That is the thing that disturbs me most of all. It disturbs me that the threat of possible legal action caused the suppression of a petition and thus constituted contempt of the Parliament. That was our main area of concern, the Government sought to water that down dramatically. As a result, the Committee did not address the problem that was originally raised. Moreover, the decision of members of the Committee along party lines to refuse to hear evidence from the petitioner concerned further reduced the effectiveness of the Committee's report. In my view, this really showed a lack of interest in any problems faced by private citizens compiling petitions. I think that to have muscles flexed in such a manner whereby petitioners can be threatened by citizens just because they are raising a matter of concern is an issue which really the Senate should be addressing. It is a matter of record, acknowledged in paragraph 5 of the report, that Senator Collins's successful amendment on 16 March was to the effect that the removal of what he described as `personal references' in the original motion did not preclude the Committee, on its own motion, interviewing people concerned with the original case. Therefore, I think it is quite disturbing that the Committee-to be precise, its Australian Labor Party and Australian Democrats members in particular-voted to refuse to invite Mr Strickland to appear before it. I think that it was important that Mr Strickland should have been heard in evidence before the Committee. This can be described only as a determined political move to prevent the airing of a very real grievance-that of a citizen whose right to petition the Senate may have been improperly infringed. In regard to this whole question we have been continually confronted with a proposition floated by the Government that the petition cited by Senator Durack in his dissenting report is somehow grossly defamatory-from which it follows that Mr Burke had every right to institute legal proceedings. Quite frankly, in reading the petition, it is revealed that the petition merely asks that Mr Burke be available to answer questions in regard to charges against Mr Brush and Mr Martin. The petition accused him of no active wrong doing. It makes no aspersion as to his fitness to act as ambassador to Ireland, once matters have been answered to the satisfaction of both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia. Therefore, there was nothing defamatory at all in that petition. However, both Mr Burke and the Federal Government were extremely sensitive about the petition. Of course, Mr Burke was so sensitive about it that he threatened to sue Mr Strickland. I therefore stress the point made by Senator Durack-that there are no grounds for the Senate to assume that this petition was defamatory in any way, and that the Clerk of the Senate had specifically cautioned against such an assumption. The Committee by its action has ignored the important question of whether the threat of legal action on spurious grounds can be used to deter a petitioner from circulating a petition dealing with legitimate matters of public concern. I think my main area of concern is that pressure can be put on citizens to prevent them from actually ensuring that this Parliament knows their concerns. None of us can pretend that a private citizen, acting as such and not fronting for a larger organisation, would not have every reason to avoid litigation. Of course, this was the case with Mr Strickland. Naturally enough, Mr Strickland was very concerned when Mr Burke threatened his action. Of course, Mr Strickland ceased circulating his petition. A case for defamation might have the flimsiest chance of success in the courts but the plaintiff could rely on the fact that a defendant could not afford legal advice, time away from work in the courts and the stress that invariably is produced by legal proceedings and that is experienced particularly by those unused to such proceedings. The precedent therefore exists in Gee's case of 1696, whereby the bringing of a libel action against people petitioning the House of Commons was found to be a contempt of the House. I am not, of course, alleging that Mr Burke was necessarily in contempt of the Senate through the threat of defamation proceedings, and I do not wish to be interpreted in that way. But what I do regret is the fact that this possibility has in no way been canvassed by the Committee that was set up really to look at the whole issue. It ought to concern the Senate that this inaction may have set a very negative precedent whereby petitions, in any way questioning the actions of public figures, circulated by private citizens may be quashed merely by the threat of legal action. I do not think that is a desirable position. It really does defy logic to maintain that any protection that might be afforded to a petition of the nature of the one quoted in the dissenting report would thereby provide carte blanche for petitions that made specific and harmful allegations against individuals. I think the point is made in the Committee report that petitions in general relate to public policy rather than the redress of personal grievances. It is therefore unlikely that allegations against individuals in particular, who legitimately would seek legal redress, would arise through their circulation. It must be remembered that the original petition in contention was concerned with public policy and did not accuse any citizen at all of any wrong doing. It would appear paradoxically enough, I suppose, that a person could submit a defamatory petition against an individual to the Senate and avoid libel if it were not actually circulated to anybody else. This is suggested in paragraph 21 (iii) of the report. The Senate could refuse to receive the petition, but its originator would still have enjoyed the protection denied the mover of a bona fide petition. I very strongly endorse the conclusion reached by Senator Durack that the intention of presentation to the Senate should not excuse the publication of defamatory material, but that grounds exist for some legal immunity for limited and private publication. Therefore I think it is a very reasonable proposition advanced by Senator Durack that the Committee should have recommended an amendment to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 to protect individuals from the threat of legal proceedings that can deter them from raising with the Senate matters of legitimate concern. Clearly there is a need to establish ground rules that on the one hand would maintain the right of the citizen to protect himself or herself from harmful, libellous statements circulated as a petition, but on the other hand would protect the citizen from the abrogation of the right to petition the Senate on matters of public policy through the threat of legal proceedings. The Committee report does nothing to assist in the establishment of any such procedure, given the Committee's refusal to hear evidence from the person whose case gave rise to the original reference. The point was well made on 16 March by Senator Chaney that the body of law of parliamentary privilege has been built up through the examination of particular cases. It is regrettable to me that this tradition has been neglected, producing a report of what can be assessed only as of very slight value. The Senate at least can be grateful for a dissenting report that does have the courage to address the real issue as to whether powerful and influential figures can in effect suppress any petition that questions their actions or urges that they give account of them. I think that would be a very sad day. The Opposition does believe that the Senate has a responsibility to the public for the rights of Australians to circulate petitions on matters of genuine public concern, as this petition was, but observing of course the proper decorum in form and content. How sad it is that other parties appear not to share this concern and actively seek to ignore the question of whether legitimate petitions can be suppressed by this threat not of conviction for libel but of embarrassing and costly legal proceedings that many people simply cannot afford. As I said, I think it is a very sad day when we get to a position where people are obviously not going to be able to circulate petitions of public concern. As there are not other speakers, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Chaney: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.25) —The Senate will recall that after a three-year inquiry the Joint Select Committee on Video Material came up with its report in late April of this year. The majority of the Committee, comprising members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, recommended a ban on X-rated videos and their R-rated equivalents. It made certain other recommendations which are included in its report. Those recommendations deal with the issue of video violence. The majority of the Committee made some specific recommendations relating to violence which were not taken up and included in the minority recommendations. There have been some rather ludicrous suggestions that the majority of the Joint Select Committee was weak on violence and strong on sex. I point out to honourable senators that our Committee made specific recommendations; firstly, relating to the need for material that is contained in the lower classifications relating to violence to be upped or outed; and, secondly, that the whole area of relish for violence be banned. On 29 June 1988 all State governments in Australia recommended to the Federal Government that it place a ban on X-rated material. I do not have sufficient time in the seven minutes that are available to me to go extensively into the other recommendations that we made. Those relate to the sale and hire of material, under what circumstances and what conditions. I hope that they are fairly well known amongst both legislators and the community. All of the State governments recommended that the Federal Government place a ban on X-rated videos. It is important to know what this material is, and it is important to know that we are talking, in the X category, of physically non-violent material but material that portrays women as eager for sexual experiences of any kind and ever-ready for any opportunity for sexual activity. This is frequently manifested in the group sex scenes depicting diverse sexual activities which are a feature of much of the material. It is important to note that according to the evidence that we received, which was cited by the Committee, such material engenders in the viewer a sexually callous and manipulative orientation towards women. It mediates in the minds of the habitual viewer women in general as being highly promiscuous and available. It is interesting to note that at least four of the researchers saw the non-violent pornographic videos as being more harmful in this regard than even the more violent video material. I refer to Professor Check, Professor Zillman, Professor Bryant and Professor Weaver. That is an important thing for honourable senators to remember. As has been observed in the report, the Film Censorship Board has already banned material which links explicit sex with explicit violence. Some of the producers try to get around that, but at least the Film Censorship Board has done that. As we observed in the report, this ban was placed on this material on the basis of behavioural science evidence that the Film Censorship Board had at that time. Since the Board did that in 1984 a considerable amount of research material has become available and it was made available to the Committee. As I indicated, this material showed, so far as at least four of the researchers were concerned, that the type of material that is contained in X-rated videos is more harmful in this regard than even the violent pornography. I come then to the issues. Once what the material contains is explained and its harmful effect is explained, a reasonable person would consider the matter to be of such importance as to require legislation. Indeed, one recommendation of the Committee was that this matter be dealt with not by regulation but by legislation. The response to that is that this would be a form of censorship. We are not talking about censorship. That is precisely not the issue. We already have censorship. We already have a ban on explicit or unjustifiable depictions of sexual violence against non-consenting persons. Child pornography and bestiality are already prohibited imports. I know there is an argument abroad that there should be no censorship even of that material, but I do not think it holds sway amongst many people. Then we hear the often repeated statement that adults should be free to see, hear and read what they choose. Even that is not the issue. Of course adults are free to consume poison too, if it is produced. But in fact the Federal Government and the Film Censorship Board have thus far seen this as not in the nature of a principle to be applied universally and uniformly but rather as a slogan to be used selectively and arbitrarily in a manner that lacks credibility. In the case of video pornography the Government has thus far resorted to the use of that slogan, rather than admit to giving priority to the exploiting pornographers' claim to right of freedom of expression over all other individual and societal rights. This argument should not be confused with the debates of the late 1960s, which were characterised as debates between the literati and the philistines. This, in fact, is the reverse. This is material that has been produced by the philistines to make a quick buck, claiming that their right of freedom of expression is impeded. I think it is important to understand that the State governments want this material banned and for the Federal Government to ensure that it is. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Colston) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.36) —Following Senator Harradine in this debate, I wish to deal with one other section, and that is the section on violence. The Joint Select Committee on Video Material reported in April 1988. I think the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, would agree that there is a requirement for the Government to respond to a committee report within three months. The Minister is yawning and pretending he is very bored about the question I am asking him, but I do ask him: Does the Government intend to respond to this report? It is of great interest to the community. I hope it is not the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) who is now in charge of this matter. I could not stand it. I ask Senator Button not to leave the chamber. I ask him to remain and take the rest of this debate. Obviously I have to put up with Senator Evans. I know only too well his views on video material because he was the original instigator of the proposition that the barriers to pornography be lifted. It was he as the Attorney-General at the time who said, `Open slather'. It was only after deals had been done with all of us that he eventually was forced to withdraw and restrict the violence and sexual violence that he was so keen to allow to be shown on video screens in the home. It was he as Attorney-General who decided that that sort of rubbish could not be shown to the public in cinemas-it was too bad-but it was all right for home entertainment. It was he who was very anxious to allow it to be shown there. However, we have waited patiently-some of us impatiently-for the Government to respond to this particular Senate Committee report, but we have not had the courtesy of that response. Senator Harradine —Not only ours, but also the State governments. Senator WALTERS —The State Attorneys-General met, as Senator Harradine indicated earlier, and they came to a decision. I believe at the time the Commonwealth also agreed with the action to be taken, but we have not heard any further. I will deal with the area of violence. In our Committee report we noted that a fair amount of research by the South Australian Council for Children's Films decided that the children it had surveyed were seeing films that were not appropriate for them. Those children were between the age of six and 12 years. The majority by far were seeing films that were not suitable for their age group. One per cent were seeing X-rated classified films; 16 per cent were seeing R-classified films; 33 per cent were seeing M-classified films, and only 26 and 23 per cent were seeing the remaining two categories. We must bear in mind that, according to classification, the M-rated videos are suitable only for children over 15 years. Yet the majority of the groups were seeing quite freely those M-rated videos. The Committee came down with several recommendations which I believe were of paramount importance. I will read to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade some of those recommendations because I am sure he has not bothered to look at them. It was unanimously recognised by the Committee as a whole that violence ought to be curtailed, that there ought to be an ability for parents to walk into a video shop and pick up a video for their children knowing exactly what was in that video or, if it were the case, why it was not suitable for their young children to view. We recommended that non-G markings be displayed on the front cover of the video slip as part of the prescribed markings. We said why reasons should be given if the films were to be rated PG, M, X or R. We said that there was great difficulty in finding the classification symbol on many video containers at the moment. We recommended that it be not only on the video cassette but also on the outside cover. We said that the agencies must display very clearly what the various markings meant, and we went into a great deal of detail. We also made an attempt-I think a very good one-to reduce violence generally in video films. We recommended that the current guidelines for R-rated violence be altered. An R-rating is the peak of the violent videos: it is the top grade. The Committee decided that the violence in some of those R-rated videos was too extreme. To try to clarify the guidelines the Film Censorship Board should take into account, we said those guidelines should be altered. Previously they said that explicit depictions of violence but not detailed or gratuitous depictions of acts of considerable violence or cruelty were ruled out. We added a simple word but it made a great difference. We said that the guidelines should now refer to `explicit depictions of violence but not detail relished or gratuitous depictions of acts of considerable violence or cruelty'. We added the word `relished'. While that may appear to be small it is very important. It cut out of all those extremely violent videos any depiction of someone enjoying committing the violence, enjoying the suffering of his or her victim. That will cut out a considerable number of the extremely violent R-rated videos. That was a unanimous report, yet the Government has continued to ignore the Committee's recommendations. I do not understand why. There is considerable concern in the community on a number of these classifications. When all the States want the Commonwealth to take some action, I do not understand why it refused to do so. I do not understand when Government members recommend certain action-it seems very sensible and reasonable action and it is a unanimous decision of the Committee-why the Government still refuses to take that action. I can only presume that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is finding it very difficult to get it past the party room and is not game to bring it into the Senate. I hope that the Attorney-General very quickly brings forward this legislation, as required by our recommendations. I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who is at the table, to give that message to the Hon. Lionel Bowen. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Cook: That the following Sessional Order, contained in the Report, be adopted: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, in a debate on a motion for the suspension of any Standing or Sessional Order a Senator shall not speak for more than 5 minutes, and if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the moving of the motion the question on the motion shall then be put- Debate (on motion by Senator Tambling) adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(6.46) —When this matter was being discussed before I made several points in relation to the motion for disallowance. First, cost containment is a reasonable goal for government and, if that is the goal of government, we do not object to government pursuing that goal. But the Government has made claims without offering evidence for the course it wishes to take. The claims that the Government has made and which I outlined before are that too many expensive drugs are being prescribed; secondly, that the Government wishes to save money; thirdly, that the Government believes that the new arrangements-that is, certain drugs being available only on authority-will save money; and, fourthly, that the Government believes this can occur without detriment to patients. The Opposition opposes the Government's propositions because they do not stand up. I have already challenged the Government to show any evidence that present prescribing is idiosyncratic, that it is inappropriate, or that other cheaper drugs available are equally effective. It is for the Government to support with evidence the case it wants to make because it is proposing a particular course of action. We think that there is ample evidence to the contrary for many of the 53 drugs on the list which are now available only on authority there is simply no alternative available. If that is the case, why have those drugs gone on an authority only list? The most obvious examples of this are the anti-cancer drugs, and I mentioned these before. They are awful agents that are used to treat only those malignancies unsuitable for other therapy. In some conditions they are used to cure those malignancies, but they are awful drugs. No person will submit themselves to treatment with these agents willingly or unnecessarily. Is the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) suggesting that these anti-cancer drugs are given to people because of caprice or fashion, for reasons of fad or idiosyncrasy? If he is, will the Minister and the Government please produce some evidence? If not, if there is no evidence that drugs are being used in this way, why are they on the list requiring authority only prescription? We should disallow the regulations and tell the Government to try again. Has the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) any expert evidence to back up the very convenient statements he made in his speech in Geelong when he said that doctors were prescribing more expensive drugs when less expensive ones would do? Let us now challenge the Minister on another matter; that is, that the drugs which have gone onto this list actually represent real advances in therapeutics. Of the 53 drugs, we should tell honourable senators that 75 per cent-three out of four of the prescriptions which are written-involve just six of the drugs. All of these drugs are used for various forms of heart disease-cardiovascular disease. Honourable senators have already referred to the ACE inhibitor drugs-the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor agents-a new class of drugs. These drugs represent a real advance in therapy. In a very important editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia of 15 August, Professor John Shaw said that the list of 53 drugs is a poorly disguised attempt to camouflage a new restriction on these angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor agents and to forestall any further blow-out in costs as new cholesterol lowering agents become available. I have to say to the Government that if the drugs work, if more people in society require treatment for, say, elevated cholesterol levels, or for high blood pressure or heart disease, why not encourage use of the drugs, as long as they are used properly. We have evidence that they are better drugs. Certain people taking part in the community debate have told us again and again that we do not have to use these new agents for high blood pressure, that we can use treatment based on certain diuretics, on the old thiazide diuretics, that they are alternatives to the new drugs in various combinations and that they are much cheaper. The people who say that are wrong. The new drugs are different. They are better. Thiazide diuretics, which I used extensively in my practice, did for many years form the basis of treatment for high blood pressure and certain conditions, but in the United Kingdom they have been found, when used by males, to be associated with a high incidence of impotence. Any doctor who has been in practice would know that one of the problems in treating high blood pressure was to convince male patients that it was worth having the treatment, if one of the side effects, as it not infrequently was, was impotence. The thiazide diuretics have that as a side effect. How do we now explain to patients that because of government cost saving priorities they should accept an unnecessary and higher incidence of impotence with the cheaper treatment for their blood pressure? Senator Reid —Unreasonable. Senator PETER BAUME —It is unreasonable. However, that is the kind of alternative and the Government is saying that we should go for the cheaper drug-for example, the thiazide diuretics. The fact is that the new drugs do not happen to have those side effects. Further, we know that it has been demonstrated that the treatment with thiazides for hypertension in the elderly in Australia is associated with a higher incidence of sudden death and mortality from myocardial infarction-heart attacks. If I had mild hypertension, high blood pressure, I would want the best treatment available. Senator Puplick —We are all at risk from that. Senator PETER BAUME —I suppose we are, working here. I have a letter here from Professor Trefor Morgan, Professor of Physiology in the University of Melbourne-a graduate from the golden year of medicine, I should say. Professor Morgan actually says that for his patients the initial treatment of choice for high blood pressure, for reasons which he sets out in his letter, in fact is this new group of drugs, the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor agents-the ACE inhibitors, as they are called. If I had mild hypertension, my treatment of first choice would be a converting enzyme inhibitor. Professor Morgan says that if that did not work, the second treatment of choice would be a slow channel calcium blocking drug. Both Professor Morgan's first line choice of treatment and his second line choice of treatment involve drugs that happen to be on the list of 53 drugs for which prescribing will now be more difficult. Honourable senators should understand that it is not just a question of saying that too many drugs are being prescribed. We should look at the scope for treating high blood pressure in Australia. The National Heart Foundation has produced information and has published data which indicates that 30 per cent of women and almost 50 per cent of men who have elevated blood pressure in Australia were not receiving any treatment at the time of a risk factor prevalence survey. If we merely treated all the people who have elevated blood pressure in Australia, that would certainly improve health outcomes-and it would involve the use of more drugs. Merely to provide some treatment for the 50 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women with elevated blood pressure who are presently receiving no treatment should lead to the use of more-not fewer-of these agents. The newer cardiovascular drugs have no equivalents therapeutically. They have fewer side effects; they are used less in Australia than in comparable countries; and they are not being over-prescribed. Let us now consider the foolish way that the Government has approached the whole exercise. In a speech that he made on 7 July in Geelong, Senator Walsh quoted internal figures, and said that there had been major increases from $1 billion for drugs, projected to go to $1.9 billion by 1990-91. Senator Walsh was using rubbery figures, because that projection is valid only if one assumes that a one-year rise in cost was carried on year by year, unchanged, through to 1991-only if that one year rate of increase was maintained over each year-and, of course, it will not be. The Australian Medical Association understands that the list was selected simply by a process of the Government inviting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to provide information on which drugs within the pharmaceutical benefits scheme cost more than $30 for a course of treatment. The drugs were chosen solely on the basis of cost and not on the question of effectiveness, whether they represented a real advance, whether they were needed, whether there was a large group of people untreated, or on whether it would involve efficiency. A blanket approach has been taken to extend the authority system to most of the drugs identified by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The result is that there have been what the Government calls some unintended consequences. The major anti-cancer drugs have been caught up in the net, and other drugs have been caught up for which there is simply no practical cheaper alternatives. They have been included in this new special authority list. The Government's proposals will require doctors to certify that less expensive therapy is not `appropriate' for a patient. Whenever I fill in an authority form, I fill it in using the exact words required by the Government, so that the clerk who is processing it knows that he has to approve it. The only net effect of that might be three million extra authority forms-with little or no saving in the cost of drugs prescribed for Australians. Very foolishly, these decisions were taken without any consultation with the organised medical profession. Now we can assess whether or not the Government has reached the wrong conclusions. I believe that it has. Whatever were the aims of the Government, the present arrangements will not achieve any good or desirable outcomes. If the goal is cost saving, the Government will probably not even achieve that, if one takes into account the extra administrative costs that the scheme will involve. The Government will restrict the prescribing of the most expensive drugs simply because they are expensive. A chemist in Mount Druitt Village-located in one of the working class areas of Sydney-a concerned citizen, put the matter to me this way: One could sympathise with the Government in attempting to curtail the costs of health and pharmaceutical benefits; however, surely a simpler system would be to place appropriate conditions in the handbook supplied to doctors, with an instruction to doctors that the issue of an ordinary prescription for these items will only be valid if the conditions are complied with. Senator Crowley would know that that is the SP kind of drug arrangement. Surely, that would have done the job. We already know that the Western Australian Labor Minister for Health, Keith Wilson, has been reported as urging a review of the changes, because he believes that patients in Western Australia are in a position where their health has been put in jeopardy. The Government's decision rests on the presupposition that much of the present prescribing is inappropriate and that the new restrictions will reduce this inappropriate activity. However, an authority scheme does not really save money. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the fact that two drugs, cimetidine and ranitidine, two drugs used for treatment of peptic ulcer, are available only on authority; but because they are necessary and because they fulfil a real need, the costs of prescribing them have actually increased. If the Government wants to save money it will have no alternative but to refuse some of the requests for authority. Senator Walters —That is the stated aim. Senator PETER BAUME —But is the Government going to refuse the authority requests? Let us approach this motion for disallowance with some sympathy for the desires of this or any government to save money, to avoid waste and to ensure the appropriate use of subsidies which are made from the public purse. The Opposition actually has sympathy with those goals, if they are carried out properly. But on this matter the Government has made wrong assumptions about the problem and has put into place quite inappropriate and foolish decisions. I have never minded filling out authority requests for drugs, and I have done it day after day for sick people; but the present scheme is foolish. It is not based on any facts or evidence which have been made available to us. It is a scheme which will save money only if it disadvantages the ill. The purpose of the Government is clearly to see less of the expensive, modern, better, more effective drugs used for the ill. If I had high blood pressure or cardiovascular disease, I would want an ACE inhibitor or a slow channel calcium inhibitor drug used for me, if that were necessary. It is an unworthy objective for the Government simply to want to save money at the expense of Australia's sick. The regulations on which that objective is based should really be disallowed so that the Government can pursue its cost containment objective in a fairer and more appropriate way. Whatever the fate of this disallowance motion, I hope that the Government, in re-examining and reviewing this matter-as it is doing in the face of very considerable public concern and pressure-will bring in new arrangements and regulations that will achieve significant cost savings, if that is what it seeks, that will not harm the people of Australia who are in need of treatment. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(7.03) —We are discussing the Government's proposal to take off the list of pharmaceutical drugs available in Australia some 53 items which are important in the treatment of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer and epilepsy. We find, of course, that the Australian Democrats, the people who are always espousing causes and pretending, one might almost say, that they care about people in Australia, will vote with the Government on this matter. That disappoints me somewhat because I would have thought that this was one matter where the Democrats really would have seen that there was some benefit and some point in ensuring that the sick people in Australia are able to get the treatment they need. The Government is shifting 53 items onto the authority only list. This is a total misuse of the authority only list which, as Senator Peter Baume has pointed out, has been used for some considerable time. A doctor is required to obtain specific approval from the Department of Community Services and Health to prescribe drugs on that list. That has been the case for good reason. Under this arrangement addictive drugs and new drugs are able to be monitored, and no-one has complained about that. This concept has been supported. But what we are seeing now is a total misuse of the authority only list. Australians are being denied access to drugs which are expensive or new merely because the Government wants to try to rein in the exorbitant cost of its misguided Medicare health system. It is merely a cost cutting measure, with no regard whatever being shown for the people who would benefit from the types of drugs that are now available in Australia and in countries similar to our own. The Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) claims that this arrangement will make doctors think about cheaper but equally effective methods of treatment. It is worth looking back at what the Government promised in 1983 and 1984. None of us has forgotten the rhetoric of the 1983 election about what Medicare would do, or the rhetoric of 1984, when Medicare was to come into operation. In an article in the Canberra Times on 29 January 1984 Neal Blewett said: On February 1, all the costs, the complications, the inconvenience and the headaches that crippled the health-insurance system over the past few years will end. Well, anyone who has not been sick since February 1984 may think that that has happened. Anyone who has been sick or has had a member of his family sick will know that that in fact is not the case. The Minister said: Two out of three families will be paying less. That is a joke for most people in Australia. He went on: If you go to a public hospital, Medicare will provide free accommodation and treatment by hospital doctors-whether you are an in-patient or an out-patient. People should just try getting into a hospital these days if they are sick. I could spend the rest of the night telling the Senate of incidents in Canberra that have occurred since 1984, when Medicare was thrust upon us. I could tell the Senate of people in Canberra who have waited 3 1/2, 4 1/2, five hours at Canberra hospitals. Senator Puplick —Not the Minister when his family was sick in Canberra. Senator REID —Not the Minister when someone in his family was sick. I am talking about people who do not have a private doctor to whom they could go but had to depend on the public hospital system, people who have been sent home in the middle of the night, having sat in the outpatients department. I am talking about elderly people over 90 years of age. Only today I heard of a man whose doctor said that he should be in hospital. But the doctor said to the family, `Don't just take him there because if you do he will spend four or five hours sitting in casualty'. The family cannot get him admitted. The hospitals have rejected him. So the Minister's message on 29 January 1984 has not proved to be the case. We did not expect it to be, and we have said so frequently. A press release put out at the same time as the Minister's article waxed lyrical over four pages. The press release stated: `The introduction of Medicare is the biggest step ever taken by an Australian Government to ensure that every Australian has the best and cheapest medical and hospital care', Dr Blewett said. Well, it is turning out to be the cheapest; it is not turning out to be the best. I could read more of that press release, but I have other things to say on this topic. The Government proposes to chop Australians out of health care by removing 53 drugs from the list. There is no doubt that this is an indication of the failure of Medicare. The Government is effectively saying that patients in Australia are not entitled to the benefits of research and development for many quite common conditions because it is not prepared to run a health scheme which will enable these things to be paid for. The Federal Government is condemning many people with the complaints that I have referred to-cancer, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and epilepsy-to what can be regarded as second rate treatment. Roughly 28,000 people a year die from cancer. An Australian Bureau of Statistics health survey reveals that 55,400 Australians would have experienced an episode of epilepsy in any given period of two weeks. The survey, which was taken when Australia's population was less than 16 million, showed that one person in 275 had suffered an epileptic attack in a two-week period. We are talking about keeping from people drugs which would enable them to lead more normal lives and get on with their jobs and social arrangements. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has identified some of the effects. Senator Peter Baume has spoken about them. The cheaper alternative drugs the Government wants doctors to prescribe for high blood pressure, heart disease and strokes can have the side effect of impotence. Cuts to Medicare and to what is available under the system are not new. As I said, think back to the rhetoric of 1983 and 1984. Ever since then the sick have been facing cuts to available health services. Let us look at what is happening in Canberra. I am not being parochial when I say that; I am looking at a health system which is run entirely by the Federal Government. The Government cannot hide behind State government decisions or other decisions. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) situation is an example of Medicare as it happens. There have been cuts to what is available right through. Universal health services have not provided care to those who need it. The benefits have been chipped away ever since the scheme began. The levy has been increased from 1 per cent to 1.25 per cent of income. So people are paying more and getting less. The people I am concerned about are those who cannot afford, in addition to paying the levy, to have private health cover. They are the people who are suffering-the ones who need to rely on the government health system. According to the Canberra Times of 21 September, the number of items on the Medicare pathology benefits table has been almost halved in a major rationalisation of the schedule. Is not the Labor Government keen on the word `rationalisation'? We know what it means: people are getting less than they thought they were or less than they are entitled to. The article says that this has been undertaken to promote more efficient pathology services and reduce the confusion caused by the large number of items. We are not fooled by those sorts of words: we know what they mean. Medicare has failed. There are hospital waiting lists like I have never seen before in this country. There is a lack of funds for vital medical equipment. Cancer patients in the ACT have had to travel to Sydney or Melbourne for treatment because the unit at the Woden Valley Hospital no longer has equipment that can be relied upon. The computer which operates part of the equipment breaks down. The system is so old that parts cannot be obtained, or they have to come from old equipment overseas to try to keep it going. That is what is happening to our health service in the ACT. The neglect of the cardiology unit at the Royal Canberra Hospital is such that it has driven the head of that unit-an expert in this area whose reputation is beyond dispute-to take extended leave and to comment publicly on what is not now available in the cardiology unit at the Royal Canberra Hospital. Patients in that unit are sitting in corridors because the Department has not adequate office space. The need for the upgrading of the Royal Canberra Hospital is beyond dispute. The former Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, commented on it only a short time after a report as to the necessity for upgrading the Royal Canberra Hospital was produced. An amount of $160m is needed over a period of years. How much did we get towards that in this year's Budget? Nothing. The Royal Canberra Hospital stays in the same condition as it has been in. Anybody who had a patient there last summer will remember the conditions when the air-conditioning was not working. Patients were sent home as they were unable to cope with those conditions in the heat of summer. It is little wonder that the morale of the health care workers in this Territory is so low. There has been industrial disputation in the health area since Labor was elected, with nurses, the Hospital Employees Federation, the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, transport workers employed in the area, private doctors, physiotherapy professionals and the like involved. The salaried doctors in the Canberra hospitals resigned en masse last Friday, giving a week's notice. The most recent report that I have heard on it, which I think was today, asked whether the deadlock had been broken. The doctors had still not withdrawn their resignations and until that happened the dispute would be considered serious. Can one imagine it being anything other than serious if the doctors employed in the hospitals are resigning en masse because of the conditions? I suggest that this problem, personified in Canberra where the Federal Government is totally responsible for health care, reflects the conditions in other hospitals in this country. It is useful to look at what goes on here. When this Government tells us that we in this country can no longer afford the benefits and advances in the medical and pharmaceutical area for common conditions such as those to which I have referred, it really is committing us to the status to which the Treasurer (Mr Keating) referred a couple of years ago-a banana republic. He is now strutting around the world purporting to tell other countries how to run their economies. Before doing that, he ought to come home and find out what it is like to try to get health care in this country. The problem lies with the failure of Medicare to provide. It is costly. We are not talking about spending more money: we are talking about spending the money that is available more wisely. An editorial in the Canberra Times as recently as 24 September, headed `The ACT no place to get sick'-is that not the truth?-outlines the situation. If one has a broken bone in the ACT one is likely to have to go to Wagga Wagga in New South Wales for orthopaedic treatment. Senator Walters —In the capital of Australia. It is an absolute disgrace. Senator REID —That is the case in the national capital. We had a health system in the ACT which provided for the region of New South Wales. People came here for treatment. We were proud of our hospital system. We are very disappointed that it has been brought to what it is now. The Government talks about setting up an inquiry. If it is genuine about that, I hope that it will get to the bottom of the problem-that is, the failure of Medicare. I hope that the Government is not setting up an inquiry merely to hide behind it while it goes on, rather than doing something to solve the problem of those in Canberra who need the health system. The editorial stated: It would almost be comforting if the mass resignations were a rare disruption to a smooth and efficient ACT public health system, but the system has long been plagued by industrial action by nurses, hospital employees and doctors, services have been reduced, old equipment has not been replaced and an urgent refurbishing of the Royal Canberra Hospital has been deferred till self-government is achieved. That is the state of health care in the ACT. Another article, entitled ` ``No room at the inn'' in ACT hospitals', quoted the ACT President of the AMA as follows: It is ironic that if Mary and Joseph arrived at Royal Canberra Hospital at Christmas time, they would find the ante-natal ward closed and `no room at the inn'. He was referring to the closure of 268 hospital beds in Canberra during the Christmas-New Year break which, he said, seemed to be based on the premise that patients were an impediment to the efficient running of hospitals. It is a story that no government should be proud of. The Government should be ashamed. Setting up an inquiry is not enough. We want solutions. We want to know that those who must rely on the public health system are able to get the services they need. The Opposition's motion to disallow the Government's chopping out of another 53 items of medication and the impediment which is being placed upon it under the guise of this authority list has been moved because we believe that the people of this country are entitled to a better health system than they are getting at present. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(7.18) —We ought to be fully aware of what the Government is on about. Its sole aim is to cut costs. That is what it has stated. Indeed, I have a copy of a letter from the Minister to Professor Lewis of the University of Tasmania, and that is his priority-cutting costs. It does not matter about the second rate health care that creates; it does not matter about the health of the patient; and it does not matter what type of drugs are involved, so long as the Government can cut costs. We are assured that the Government's decision has been taken on the basis of bureaucrats deciding which drugs should come off the list. Naturally, the most expensive will come off. We have been told that there are cheaper drugs: they may well have side effects; nevertheless, there are cheaper drugs that can take their place. That is typical of what the Government has done in the past. I will mention two other occasions on which the Government has used ridiculous decisions to attempt to cut costs. Recently we debated the nursing homes legislation in which the Government made an effort to regulate staff numbers. We all remember that debate. Nursing homes were given a patient score. If they had a certain number of patients with a high score they were entitled to more staff. The score system was quite ridiculous. It obviously had nothing at all to do with nursing care. When I asked the Minister who was involved in recommending this score sheet to him, I was told that the person involved was qualified in statistics and research. The person was qualified not in nursing but in statistics and research. There was not proper consultation. That is typical of this Government. Then on another occastion it said, `Get the bureaucrats to decide on the number of visits a patient with a certain illness can make to a specialist without the specialist's schedule fee being downgraded'. It did not matter to the Government that some of the illnesses were so serious that a patient could not possibly have been treated adequately with the number of visits the bureaucrats decided. This was a cost saving exercise. The Government would not have to pay out so much. In the Estimates committee hearings-I am sure Senator Crowley will remember this-Senator Peter Baume spent quite a long time going through a series of serious illnesses and the number of visits permitted to a specialist, asking Dr De Souza whether he believed that was adequate treatment. Dr De Souza, as we all know, is one of the main Government advisers. On each occasion that Senator Baume asked the same question, Dr De Souza said no, he did not believe that was adequate treatment for a patient. But the Government did not care whether it was adequate treatment so long as it cut costs, so long as Medicare, because of its particular ideology, was able to survive. It did not matter that Medicare was downgraded, that it provided second and third rate health care. The bureaucrats said, `It does not matter how sick a patient is. The illness can be treated satisfactorily by a specialist on the number of visits that we determine'. Yet, as we know only too well from the Estimates hearings, that was not so, so the Government was forced to review that arrangement. What does the Government do with the nursing home patients? It gets research officers and statisticians to work out a score that will help cut Government costs. That is what it has again done in this instance. We have 53 drugs taken off the pharmaceutical benefits list and put on an authority only list. A doctor has to seek special permission to give vital medication to very ill patients. We have received a tremendous number of letters from very concerned groups. The Epilepsy Association says that it believes that any delay in giving the drug that is necessary for epilepsy patients can be life threatening. It also says that at the very best the patient can end up in hospital. Where is the Government going to save costs by allowing that to happen? The Government has said that it will save $40m. I make a little suggestion to the Government. It has just spent nearly $47m on a ridiculous referendum campaign that it lost overwhelmingly. If it had not spent that sort of money on the referendum, it could very easily have provided that $40m over three years. It will save only $40m by cutting out 53 drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme over three years, yet it squandered $46m on a referendum that the people threw out because they did not trust the mob on the other side. That is why in Tasmania 75 per cent of the people said, `We just don't trust you'. The Government spent that $46m because it was so out of touch that it had no idea that it was so far down in the dregs as far as the people out there are concerned. Let us look at what this declaration says. It is not only about the 53 drugs to be removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. Let me outline what the Government has decided to do with the cheaper drugs. At the moment under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, a doctor usually prescribes a month's supply of drugs and provides repeat prescriptions to save a patient coming back to see him so that, at the most, a patient would get three months supply of a drug. But from 1 August the patient will not have in her handbag or his pocket a month's supply of drugs. From 1 August the supply will be doubled for a range of inexpensive drugs. Patients will be able to have a lot of the cheap drugs, and to have them all at once. The Government is going to double the supply. One very experienced chemist said to me that pharmacists consider that the issue of increased drug quantities will be unsafe and contrary to the Government's national drug strategy. They say that it will cause an increase in drug abuse and accidental poisoning and that the decision is against the interests of public health. They are not prepared to be party to an increase in drug abuse. But the Government could not care less so long as the system is cheaper. It spends so much money on its national drug strategy, on a public relations exercise in which it says to the people, `Look, we are doing something'. It does not reach street level-it never did-it is just a public relations exercise. Then the Government says to the chemist, `You are allowed to hand out to these elderly people, to pensioners, twice the amount of drugs that you have been able to hand out in the past; but only the cheap ones, mind you-the ones that can have disastrous side effects'. Patients will be able to have twice as many drugs in their handbags, which the Government had always considered was not appropriate. To save a few lousy dollars that it has squandered on the referendum, it has decided to double the amount of drugs that can be supplied to a patient. Let us look at what some of the chemists have been saying about the restriction being placed on the 53 drugs to which I have referred and the requirement for doctors to apply to prescribe them. It is inevitable that delays will occur. How can a doctor treating an epilepsy patient-someone immediately in need of a drug-say, `I'm sorry; I cannot prescribe you that. I cannot send someone down to the chemist to get it for you; I have to write to the Minister. I have to seek permission from the Secretary.'? Senator Crowley —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I have practised considerable tolerance in listening to Senator Walters explain about costs in nursing homes and matters of great irrelevance, but I draw your attention to the total misrepresentation of the facts in this matter and I ask you to ask the honourable senator at least to speak the truth. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —There is no point of order. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. There is no point of order, because I am speaking the total truth. As the matter stands now, following this decision by the Government, a doctor will have to write away seeking approval to prescribe a drug for an urgent case. He will have to seek approval. He will not be able to prescribe and supply the drug immediately. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator COONEY(Victoria)(7.30) —Today during the matter of public importance debate reference was made to the Hon. Robert Fordham, Minister in the Victorian Government, about his role and activities with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation, the VEDC. He is concerned that the allegations made against him be answered and answered as soon as possible. I do so, subject to permission given, by tabling a statement which I have in front of me dated 26 August 1988. At the bottom of the statement is printed the name Robert Fordham, MP, Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources. There are three appendices with that statement which further elucidate the propositions which Mr Fordham so forcefully puts in this statement. I seek leave of the Senate to table the statement. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(7.32) —I have three matters that I wish to raise tonight. I notice that there are a number of senators on the adjournment debate list and I would like to truncate it a little. The first two matters concern two papers which have come to my attention and which would be of interest to honourable senators. Like many honourable senators I was interested in the recent stock market crash and have a paper which was prepared on financial implications of the crash. It is a paper which is factual in nature. The second matter I wanted to raise was a matter raised by my colleague, the Hon. Tim Moore, in the New South Wales Parliament. It was written before the Liberal Party won the election. It is called `Saving our cities-future directions for the urban environment'. It is also a straightforward and non-controversial paper. In view of the number of people on the adjournment I seek leave to table those two papers for the information of honourable senators. Leave granted. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the Senate. The third matter concerned some censorship of recent matters about tobacco. Tobacco policy has always brought into conflict health perspectives and interests on the one hand and mercantile perspectives and interests on the other. Many other groups in society find themselves brought in. For example, sporting bodies find that their funding becomes dependent upon the patronage of tobacco companies and tobacco sponsorship. Cultural bodies find they cannot continue to function without the money that comes to them from tobacco retailers, the pushers of legal drugs. Tobacco retailers are also knowing agents of avoidable death and suffering. Even the press becomes involved. The papers value the advertising revenues that come from cigarette and nicotine industries. Of course honourable senators realise that the print media enjoy all the acknowledged press advertising by the tobacco industry. The electronic media has to satisfy itself with what it can squeeze out through the improper use of corporate sponsorship. The press does not want to take any action that would jeopardise that industry or the money it gets from revenue. It does not want to take any action that would threaten its own revenues. Rev- enue is an approach based on self-interest ahead of public interest. A recent event illustrates this lack of public responsibility by the newspapers clearly and dramatically. That event occurred, as honourable senators would be aware, against the background that two States-Victoria and South Australia-have passed legislation restricting sponsorship activities and advertising by tobacco companies. This action was taken in those two States quite simply because cigarette promotion is a form of recruitment of our young into a dangerous and addictive form of drug use. In the last week in June legislation went through the Parliament of Canada totally banning all cigarette advertising in that country. The legislation in Canada provided for penalties of up to $Can300,000 for breaches of the new law. My friend Dick Smith, that outstanding Australian explorer, anti-cigarette campaigner, publisher of the Australian Geographic, conservationist, and concerned citizen, was aware of the Canadian legislation. He was interested in how it would be received in Australia. In fact, Dick Smith wrote a letter to the editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Max Frisk, on 8 July. It states: Dear Max Last week legislation went through the Canadian Parliament totally banning all cigarette advertising with the heaviest penalty ever set in that country's legislation of a whopping $300,000. This ban includes newspapers, magazines, billboards and other outdoor advertising as well as sports sponsorship. I understand this is the first English speaking country that has done this. Even though this quite far-reaching announcement was on the world wire-services, the anti-smoking movement took a bet with me that it would not be mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald. They were right. Surely it is important that Australians know of this quite drastic legislation for if news is suppressed there is no way a democracy can work. I am sure you agree. Yours sincerely Dick Smith Sadly for the Australian public and for the reputation of our Australian press Dick Smith was absolutely right in the prediction he made as he has been right on so many other occasions and issues. Only one Australian newspaper carried any report of the legislation enacted in Canada which, if it were enacted here, would assist in a major reduction of death and disability, would improve the public health, and-we note this-reduce the revenue of the print media in Australia. All newspapers ignored the story, except the Australian Financial Review which, on 1 July, ran a small story under the headline `Canada gets tough with smoke bans'. It was a good and adequate story. What is worth reporting here to the Senate and what was contained in Dick Smith's letter to the Sydney Morning Herald is that the anti-smoking movement was able to take a bet with him that the story of new legislation in Canada would be suppressed by the newspapers even though it came in on all the wire-services. Was it suppressed because it was not important? No, of course not. Was it suppressed because it was not interesting? No, of course it was not. It was suppressed because it represented a conflict with the vested interests of the papers. That is the tragedy of the episode. Of course, it could be that there is some other simple and honourable explanation for the press non-coverage of this story. If so, it would help us all to know it but right now there does not appear to be a simple explanation. One would have to worry about the information that might be made available, or might not be made available, should a similar measure be proposed for us here. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(7.39) —My concern relates to the actions of the Department of Customs and Excise when it checks and rebates tax-free fuel. In years gone by off-road fuel that was mainly used by agricultural and mining industries could be obtained by getting a certificate and one did not have to pay up front. In the mid-1970s under a Liberal Government that idea was changed and one had to pay it all first up or charge it to one's account and then apply for a refund later. That system one way or the other has not worked too badly up to the present where one expects to get one's rebate back for off-road fuel within the pay period of 30 days. But since mid-May this year things down at Customs and Excise seem to have gone haywire. There has been a heap of applications for the fuel rebate by agriculturalists around Australia after having planted their crops. The payment of that rebate has been tardy. Generally during seeding farmers do nothing else; they do not even open their mail, for that matter. They do not bother putting in an application for their fuel rebate. They make a lump application towards the end of June and hope to have the rebate by the end of July to pay the 30 June accounts. As I have said already, this year things have gone haywire. The rebates are just not coming back. I will give honourable senators just a couple of examples of what has happened. Example No. 1 involved an application received by the Department on 14 July for $9,560. When the person concerned found that his rebate was not in the bank when it should have been, he was told on inquiry that his application lacked one signature. This person was in a partnership and had been signing for that partnership for the 10 years since its inception. All of sudden the Department decided that it had to have the signatures of both partners and, therefore, it sent the application back out. Of course, it took about 32 days for the Department to work out that another signature was needed. The application was sent back out on 16 August. The application was returned to the Department. When the fellow inquired again of the Department, he was told that there was a questionnaire to go out. Obviously the Department sends questionnaires out every now and then no doubt to ensure that the exemption still applies. However, the Department sent out the questionnaire without sending the cheque. It took until 19 September to send that questionnaire out. This fellow was getting desperate by then and returned the questionnaire fairly quickly. He then made another inquiry to the Department asking where the money was now. He was told that the cheque would go out in a few days-that was 19 September-after a few minor queries had been sorted out. Of course, as I told honourable senators, that matter has been going on since the present certificate system has been in action. As of today, he still had not got his money. My quick calculation of the overdraft rate or the money forgone in interest adds up to about $500 and rising. Example No. 2 involved an application for $1,895. This application was received by the Department on 29 July this year. It took the Department until 30 August-in other words, one full month and one day-to have the application verified. Of course, the Department then found some good reason not to pay it until 8 September. I have not even bothered to work out what the interest lost on that money would have amounted to. Of course, in regard to all these matters I have rung the Department and asked the reason for the trouble. The only excuse I have got is that the Department has been working to rule. I do not know whether working to rule in the Department happens at this time of the year or when the Government is short of money. When we total these two minor sorts of accounts-there are a lot bigger accounts than these around the place; accounts which would put those two to shame-it must amount to a loss of millions and millions of dollars around Australia. These people I am talking about are either paying interest on money borrowed or are forgoing interest because it is going into the Government's coffers. On the other side of the coin, of course, if one is one day late in paying a tax bill one incurs quite a penalty. The Australian Taxation Office does not want any excuses such as the money having been delayed in the mail or that one's office is working to rule. The Taxation Office just does not listen to that sort of thing. If one just happens to mail off a cheque and leave off the interest, one will certainly find that that interest is added to one's tax bill next year. I am raising this subject because I think it is a serious matter throughout Australia. I consider that the Government could be using the delay in payments as a means of retaining interest free money in its coffers at the expense of somebody else. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(7.45) —At Question Time today Senator Collins asked Senator Robert Ray a question about the move of what he called the 16th Cavalry Regiment to Darwin. In fact, it appeared that Senator Collins really was asking about the move of the 2 Cavalry Regiment, which is the regiment referred to in the answer Senator Ray gave him. Presumably as the question was a dorothy dixer, one would have assumed that they would have had agreement between them as to what unit it was that was being moved to Darwin. My reason for rising to speak briefly tonight is to set the record straight, because Senator Ray claimed that the Opposition was opposed to the move of 2 Cavalry Regiment to Darwin and that the Opposition defence spokesman, Mr Peter White, had said so last week on his visit to Darwin. That is completely untrue. I would like to quote very briefly from a Northern Territory newspaper, which stated: Mr White said during a visit to Darwin last week that the millions of dollars the deployment would cost- the deployment of the brigade- should be directed toward more urgent priorities. While he believed the relocation of the Second Cavalry Regiment to Darwin was proper, the movement of a full brigade was ill-conceived. The situation is quite clear and unequivocal: we support the move of 2 Cavalry Regiment to Darwin. We have very good and justifiable reasons for being concerned about the movement of the brigade. This Government has been studying the possibility of moving that brigade to Darwin for some considerable time now. It was to be a two-year study. That study is now well down the track. I simply cannot believe, in light of the fact that the Government is having so much trouble producing the funds which Mr Dibb, in the White Paper, regarded as being important for the maintenance of an effective defence force, that it could possibly find the millions and millions of dollars that would be necessary to effect such a major move. If the Government has such funds, there are other much more urgent priorities within the defence area for spending the money on. Of course, the defence forces currently are announcing that they have got to cut back operations because of changes to the defence budget resulting from a lack of funds, because of an increase in training costs and because of an increase in the number of recruits to replace people who are leaving. As I say, when we have cut-backs in operations and we need money desperately to staunch the haemorrhaging of service personnel from our service ranks, that is where the money should be spent if there is any spare money to go around. It should not be spent in this rather fanciful scheme to move a brigade to Darwin. There are quite good strategic reasons for why that would not be a good proposition. It is not my purpose tonight to go into that in great detail, but I want to make it quite plain that the Opposition is very much in favour of 2 Cavalry Regiment going to Darwin. The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs, Senator Ray, and Senator Collins today tried unsuccessfully to paint a completely dishonest picture of our view on the matter. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(7.49) —I want to raise two matters this evening. However, before doing so I would like to respond briefly to the statement made by Senator Cooney earlier in debate today and to comment on the document that he tabled, as I understand it, on behalf of the Deputy Premier of Victoria, Mr Fordham, in relation to statements made about Mr Fordham's role with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC). In fact, I did not make the comments about Mr Fordham; my colleague Senator Alston did. However, I would subscribe completely to the statements made by Senator Alston. Expressions of concern have been reiterated throughout Victoria over many weeks now about the operations of the VEDC and the role of Mr Fordham in relation to the loan that was made to Wallace International Ltd. Senator Cooney has tabled on behalf of Mr Fordham a statement on the VEDC. In the two minutes I have had that statement, I have not, obviously, had the time to study it carefully. But on a very quick flip through it, it would appear that there is nothing new in this document. It is just a rehash of what we have been told over the past weeks. In my view, it in no way could cause us to resile from the statements that have been made about the role of Mr Fordham in the Wallace International case. We believe-and the Premier of Victoria has not in any way sought to refute this belief-that one of the basic reasons for the calling of the Victorian election next Saturday, 1 October-the elections was called at great haste before the Victorian Government had even let the ink dry on its Budget, let alone get it passed-in unseemly and unexplained haste, was to protect the Deputy Premier of Victoria from scrutiny in the Victorian Parliament over his role in the Wallace International loan by the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. Nothing that Senator Cooney has tabled tonight and nothing that has been said in this place today would in any way cause the Opposition to change its view of that. I want to raise two matters. I first wish to pursue a little further the question of the Victorian WorkCare scheme, about which I commented in the Senate today when we were debating the state of the Victorian economy. In that debate I spoke about the financial disaster that WorkCare has proved to be in the three years since its establishment by the Cain Government. Time prevented me from mentioning several other points I had intended to raise, and I do so now. I am advised that if the Cain Government is re-elected on Saturday all WorkCare agencies will be sacked immediately and the Accident Compensation Commission will take on the primary responsibility of being the agent. This, of course, is nationalisation in its most extreme form. It would totally nationalise the workers compensation system in Victoria, which is already so far down that track, but it would take it there in entirety by removing completely from the WorkCare scheme any role of private insurance companies in the agency arrangements for WorkCare. It obviously would lead to a great cost escalation and an enormous further expansion of the number of bureaucrats on top of the trebling of the staff of WorkCare that has already occurred during 1987-88. There are many examples of the complete shambles existing in the administration and operation of WorkCare. I will mention only four but they are just the tip of the iceberg. I mentioned the first one in my speech this afternoon, but it bears repeating. I have in my possession a copy of a cheque dated 29 August 1988 paid by WorkCare to a doctor for services rendered. Fortunately he is an honest doctor and so he returned the cheque. I say `fortunately' because the cheque was written out for $290,788. How on earth could such a mistake occur? The point I make is that it could not occur if even the most basic financial procedures were being followed by WorkCare. The second example I have concerns a copy of a letter, which is also in my possession, from a company which, again on 29 August 1988-it must have been quite a day for WorkCare-received from WorkCare a cheque for $41,129.20, which in fact should have been for approximately $4,000. Again, it was thanks only to the honesty of the company that the mistake was detected and corrected. The honesty of that company saved the taxpayers of Victoria $37,000. Those mistakes are merely indicative of the chaos which exists within WorkCare. I also have in my possession a copy of a very recent letter to WorkCare from the operator of a McDonalds restaurant complaining about a 50 per cent increase in his WorkCare levy payments. The increase was not notified to him until mid-August 1988, yet it applied from 1 July. He received no explanation whatsoever of the increase in his levy rate from 1.6 per cent to 2.4 per cent. That is a 50 per cent increase in his costs. Savage cost increases such as this are having a crippling effect on business, particularly small business, in my home State of Victoria. These cost increases are part of a deliberate pattern by the Cain Labor Government of increases in taxes and charges to fund the avaricious spending demands of the most doctrinaire socialist Government in Australia and to pay for its monumental financial mismanagement and incompetence. For my final example I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a letter to WorkCare dated 22 September 1988 from the Melbourne company A. V. Syntec Pty Ltd, which details how, in October 1987, it received a letter from WorkCare advising that the company's levy rate would be reduced by 62.5 per cent from 1 July 1988 when in reality the levy was in fact increased by a massive 90 per cent. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Incorporating: A.V. Adheelves Syntec Chemicals AVEE Chemicals A.V. Syntec Pty Ltd Bridge Road, Keysborough, Vic. 3173 Australia P.O. Box 310, Springvale, Vic. 3171 Phone: (03) 798 4944 Telex: AVSYN AA34848 Fax: (03) 796 5877 (Incorporated in Queensland) 22nd September 1988 Workcare, G.P.O. Box 262c, Melbourne, Vic. 3001 Dear Sirs, Re-Employer No. 1466229 We wish to bring to your attention a situation which is not only confusing but contradictory to public statements made by the Premier during the past seven days. When Work Care came to being we wrote to your Department advising you that a dramatic increase in premiums over the private rates that were paid prior to Work Care, your ref: 1466229-19.9.85, and asked you to review. This was duly attended to and our rate of 1.4% has been in place ever since. We received further correspondence from you dated 9.10.87 advising that new procedures and levys will be introduced on 1.7.88 which indicated that Chemical wholesalers rates would reduce to 0.570% a decrease of 62.50%. Surprise, the 1.7.88 arrives and we are informed that our Levy rate will not fall by 62.50% so widely touted in the press expounding the success of Work Care but in fact INCREASED by a massive 90%. Now fair go. If you publish a Chemical Wholesaler as 0.570% (proposed) and voice publicly that rates have or will fall for a large percentage of categories you should be prepared to go public and let everyone voting in our State elections know that what is published and expounded as good value i.e. `Gee we are doing a great job'' is not so. In fact, I am sure that if a leaflet is printed clearly state that, ``Industries with DECREASED Levy Rates'' there seems a possible case of misrepresentation on your behalf does exist. We do not accept your telephone reply to our letter dated 16.8.88 when your representative stated that we were on a special levy of 1.4% (your normal rate listed as 1.52%) is withdrawn and we are now being asked to pay 2.66%. This does not relate to any Industry remotely close to ours. We will continue to pay the 1.4% levy until we are satisfied we are getting a ``fair go'' at which time we will seek and expect a refund. Your faithfully, L. J. Field Director. Senator SHORT —The other matter I wanted to raise briefly tonight is I believe a chilling and disturbing story for anyone with even an elementary sense of justice. I do so in a preliminary manner as I intend to pursue the matter much more fully in the Senate in the weeks ahead. My purpose in raising it at all at this stage is because I believe it is vitally important that all Australians know just what is going on in Victoria in respect of union muscle in the building industry, and the complete failure by the Cain Government to do anything whatsoever to support or protect the rights of independent subcontractors in the building industry. Only if there is a public, and a media, awareness of just what is going on will there be any prospect of pressure being brought on the building industry unions to change their intimidatory practices towards subcontractors; or any prospect of reinforcing the rights of the individual and the self-employed in our society. In Victoria there is a small company called Troubleshooters Available. Troubleshooters is a labour agency which supplies unionised bona fide self-employed subcontractors to the building industry. Troubleshooters has been repeatedly intimidated, harassed and tormented by building trade unions, Victorian Trades Hall Council officials, and various government departments heavily influenced by the unions. The reason for this intimidation is that the unions want Troubleshooters to alter the status of the independent, self-employed subcontractors who Troubleshooters, as a labour agency, help place on building sites where and when they are needed. The unions want this so that they can increase their control over the subcontractors, even though every one of the subcontractors is a member of a union. Toubleshooters has refused to do this, for two reasons. First, it is not in its power to do so. Second, it would not be in the interest of the self-employed contractors. The dispute between Troubleshooters and the unions has been going on or a considerable period of time. It has been fought in the courts, and on building sites. I want tonight to draw particular attention to the latest episode in the intimidation and harassment by the unions, and particularly by the Building Workers Industrial Union. Posters and stickers are being put up around building sites in Melbourne by union officials asking that they not be named or they would be in trouble. These posters and stickers are slanderous of Troubleshooters. Troubleshooters has approached the Cain and Hawke governments for protection. They have not even been granted the courtesy of a meeting. Nor have the Cain or Hawke governments made any public denouncement of the slanderous material being distributed. It is deplorable that neither government is prepared to take any measures whatsoever against this destructive trade union power, which is deliberately obstructing the introduction of the most efficient and productive work practices in the building industry. Troubleshooters, and in particular its two principles, Peter Bosa and Brian Groves, are to be congratulated on their determined and courageous efforts to supply the Victorian building industry with its labour requirements on an efficient and productive basis. I call on the Cain and Hawke governments to instigate an inquiry into the matters I have raised tonight; and to state publicly their support for the rights of independent subcontractors in the building industry. This is not merely an industrial relations issue. This is human rights under attack. It is about the right of the independent contractor to remain independent. It is an issue that is of national importance because of its obvious ramifications. Freedom of choice is a democratic right. We cannot stand still and allow intimidation and thuggery to rob us of our rights. The future that we leave our children is up to us to determine today. In 1985 I was the first member of this place to bring to public notice the industrial intimidation at the Dollar Sweets Co. Pty Ltd. The Dollar Sweets case became a landmark in Australian industrial history. It was about the rights of the individual in the workplace. The Dollar Sweets case was followed by the equally famous Mudginberri case. Both these cases dealt a major blow at excessive trade union power at the expense of the individual trade unionist. I believe the Troubleshooters case will finish up alongside Dollars Sweets and Mudginberri as cases which will change for the better the industrial relations landscape and the human rights landscape of Australia. I can assure the Senate that these brief remarks are but the first I will be making on this matter, which I think the Senate will agree is of very great importance to us all. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria)(8.01) —As the Senate would be aware, today Debbie Flintoff-King was victorious in achieving a great hope and dream, not only for her family but for all Australians, when she won a gold medal at the XXIV Olympiad at Seoul, Korea, in the 400 metres hurdles. On such occasions `congratulations' often seems a very simple word, but it is very sincere and joyous congratulations that the Senate extends to Debbie and her family. Debbie Flintoff-King has highlighted the great spirit of achievement that the people of Australia are capable of. She epitomises the spirit of an Australian that the world has come to know and admire. As all Australians would be aware, her victory has been achieved through a great deal of sacrifice and personal tragedy, but she has striven and not yielded. Her gold is truly a gold for this country. As the National Party senator for Victoria, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Les Flintoff, the father of Debbie. Les and I were on the Victorian National Party ticket in the July 1987 election. Anyone who met Les during that election campaign would certainly have realised from where Debbie received her motivation to reach such champion status as she has today. Les really is a champion in everything he tackles. He constantly lifted the spirits of the campaign team and his sound advice made him a very important factor in my own election to the Senate. Politics needs men like Les Flintoff. I know that since the 1987 election he has put his time and energy into supporting Debbie's quest for gold at the Olympics. His reward has been to witness a great race which will be remembered for the Flintoff will and finish at its best. Today he must be very honoured and today Australia is very honoured. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.03 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 304) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 May 1988: (1) Since 11 July 1987, how many Senior Executive Service (SES) officers have become unattached within the Minister's area of portfolio responsibility, including statutory authorities, and of these: (a) how many were placed in sustantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their sustantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (2) Since July 1987 how many administrative support, other scientific and technical officers became unattached, and of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; and (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (3) What programs of retraining and redeployment are in place to usefully employ those permanent officers still on the unattached, supernumerary and redundancy list. (4) What has been the net saving in SES and other positions in each portfolio/statutory authority since 11 July 1987. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Taking all parts of the question to refer to the Machinery of Government changes which took effect on 24 July 1987, the answer to the question for my Department and portfolio agencies under my control, with the exception of the Public Service Commission, is as follows:- (1) Nil (a) Nil (b) Nil (c) Nil (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable (2) Nil (a) Nil (b) Nil (c) Nil (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable (3) Not applicable (4) Nil savings In respect of the Public Service Commission, the answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Machinery of Government changes on 24 July 1987 transferred some Public Service Board offices and staff to other departments. Remaining offices and staff continued to exist as part of the Public Service Board. On 18 September the Administrative Arrangements Act 1987 repealed provisions relating to the constitution of the Public Service Board and replaced them with provisions relating to the Public Service Commission, thereby creating the Public Service Commission. The Act also provided that anyone who held an office in the Public Service Board prior to its legislative abolition retained an office in the Public Service Commission. Therefore, technically, no officer was unattached as a result of the Machinery of Government changes. Following the Machinery of Government changes the Public Service Board and Commission varied the establishment structure for the Public Service Commission and, as a result, some staff were identified as being potentially surplus to the Commission's eventual staffing requirements. Staff in this category were assisted in gaining permanent transfer at their substantive levels to other Departments. This included both central and regional office staff. (1) 43 Senior Executive Service positions existed in the Public Service Board against which 35 Senior Executive Service officers occupied positions (a number of positions were vacant). (a) of these 35 officers: 6 were transferred to the Public Service Commission, 1 was tranferred with function to the Department of Finance, 12 with function to the Department of Industrial Relations, and 11 have been placed at their substantive level in other Departments; that is, a total 30 SES staff were placed at their substantive level. 2 officers have retired, and 3 are still surplus, (2 of whom are temporarily placed in departments and 1 is on leave without pay). (b) Nil (c) Nil (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable (2) The total Public Service Board Administrative Service Officer staff in July 1987 was approximately 745, including approximately 60 unpaid inoperatives. The 685 paid staff equated to approximately 665 ASL (full-time equivalents). Approximately 42 transferred with function to the Department of Finance; approximately 158 with function to the Department of Industrial Relations; and approximately 134 staff transferred with residual functions to the Public Service Commission, giving a balance of approximately 411 staff. (a) All i.e. 745 Administrative Service Officers (with the exception of approximately 10 unpaid inoperative staff who have not yet returned to duty as at 8 June 1988) were either placed at their substantive level or resigned or retired. (b) None (c) None (d) Not applicable (e) Not applicable (3) All officers excess to the requirements of the Public Service Commission are either occupying positions on a temporary basis in the Commission or other Departments or are engaged on duties appropriate to their level. Development options are under review for all excess staff including attendance at courses offered by the Commission's Staff Development Branch. (4) The former Public Service Board had an approved SES structure comprising 43 positions. The Public Service Commission has an approved SES structure comprising 7 positions, so the net saving to the portfolio from the abolition of the Board was 36 SES positions. The anticipated Average Staffing Level (ASL) for the Public Service Board for 1987-88 was in the order of 690. The Public Service Commission's approved ongoing ASL for 1987-88 was 124. A further 12 ASL were provided to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide corporate services to the Commission and the Merit Protection and Review Agency (which previously had similar services provided by the Public Service Board), so the total net saving to the portfolio is 554 ASL, comprising 36 ASL for SES positions and 518 ASL for other positions. Approximate figures only can be provided in response to this question as accurate records of staffing arrangements at 11 July are not available and a complete record of officers transferring to other positions was not maintained. Information provided has been drawn from a number of sources and is as accurate as can be reasonably achieved. (Question No. 311) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 10 May 1988: (1) Since 11 July 1987, how many Senior Executive Service (SES) officers have become unattached within the Minister's area of portfolio responsibility, including statutory authorities, and of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (2) Since July 1987 how many administrative support officers other than scientific and technical officers became unattached, and of these: (a) how many were placed in substantive positions at their own level; (b) how many were placed in substantive positions below their substantive level; (c) how many were offered early retirement packages; (d) what was the mean value of the packages; and (e) what was the age structure of these officers. (3) What programs of retraining and redeployment are in place to usefully employ those permanent officers still on the unattached, supernumerary and redundancy list. (4) What has been the net saving in SES and other positions in each portfolio/statutory authority since 11 July 1987. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As at 24 August 1988- (1) Since 11 July 1987 three (3) SES officers have become unattached: (a) and (b) all three actually occupy positions pending finalisation of recruitment action; (c) and (d) there have been no offers of retirement packages; (e) not applicable. (2) Since July 1987 twenty-one (21) other officers have become unattached: (a) four (4) have been placed at their substantive level; (b) no officer has been placed at a lower level; (c) early retirement has been offered to four (4) officers; (d) the mean value of the packages was $21,139.33. This figure refers only to payments made pursuant to Clause 7 of the APS Redeployment and Retirement (Redundancy) Award. It does not include recreation and long service payments in lieu, nor superannuation benefits; (e) the officers offered early retirement were aged 62, 40, 39 and 32. (3) As it is probable most of the officers concerned will be placed as a result of current or planned recruitment action, no specific training or redeployment programs have been devised. All officers are usefully employed and have received on-the-job training as necessary. Officers have been encouraged to attend external training courses and seminars where these have been relevant to their redeployment. (4) As a new Department there has been a net growth in the number of positions since July 1987. The majority of these were required to establish an administrative support structure for the diverse elements transferred to the Department. There were 1,191 positions originally transferred to the Department of Industrial Relations. The Department presently has an active establishment of 1,223 positions. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission which falls within the Industrial Relations portfolio, has had a net reduction in establishment of seven (7) positions in the period in question. (Question No. 344) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 May 1988: What expenditures, by quarter, on computing hardware and software have been made by the Minister's Department over the last 3 years to March 1988. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The following expenditures on computer hardware and software have been recorded by the Department of Defence: Quarter...Amount $m April/June 1985...17.674 July/September 1985...7.853 October/December 1985...7.338 January/March 1986...4.628 April/June 1986...28.728 July/September 1986...7.938 October/December 1986...4.105 January/March 1987...9.891 April/June 1987...27.349 July/September 1987...20.129 October/December 1987...10.360 January/March 1987...9.085 155.078 (Question No. 407) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) How many RAAF VIP passenger flights into and/or out of Perth have there been over the last 12 months? (2) What was the date of arrival and departure of these flights? (3) Who were the passengers on these flights? (4) What was the purpose of these flights? Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Fifty-eight. (2) Please refer to the following table. (3) Please refer to the following table. As will be appreciated, the production of the final record of usage of the RAAF Special Purpose fleet of aircraft requires a comprehensive verification process. Some of the detail contained in the attached Table has been collated from raw data; that is to say, not all the detail has been subjected to all of the verification process. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to presume that it is basically correct. (4) To facilitate and expedite the conduct of Government and Opposition business. 10.6.87 Mr O'Callaghan To Perth 11.6.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr O'Callaghan Ms Schofield From Perth 15.6.87 Prime Minister Mrs Hawke Mr Sorby Dr Emerson Mr Massey Ms Sinclair Ms Hunter Mr Hamon Det Sgt Sindel Snr Const Neilsen Mr Nihill Mr Harvey Mr Algate Ms Goldman Ms O'Neil Ms Templeman Ms Ewart Mr Millet Mr Murphy Mr Steketee Ms Buckley Mr Greenlees Ms Walsh Ms Savva Mr Woolford Mr Thompson Mr Sedgwick From Perth 15.6.87 Mr Young MP Ms Gregory Ms Doyle Ms Jordana To Perth 16.6.87 Mr Young MP From Perth 16.6.87 Mr Howard MP Miss McKenna Det Snr Sgt Holder Mr Jordan Mr Trebeck Mr Morris Mr Skehan To Perth 17.6.87 Mr O'Callaghan Ms Schofield To Perth 18.6.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr O'Callaghan Ms Schofield Ms Cullen From Perth 17.6.87 Mr Howard MP Mrs Howard Sen Chaney Miss McKenne Det Snr Sgt Holder Mr Trebeck Mr Morris From Perth 18.6.87 Mr Keating MP Mr Dawes Mr Mockridge Mr Miller Ms Ogston Mr Jeffers Mr Tingle Mr Davies Mr Hadler Mr Taylor Mr Tucker To Perth 19.6.87 Mr Keating MP Mr Dawes Mr Mockridge Ms Ogston Mr Jeffers Mr Tingle Mr Davies Mr Hadler Mr Taylor Mr Tucker Mr Barton Mr Olney From Perth 19.6.87 Governor-General Lady Stephen Mr Smith LTCOL Warner Mrs Warner FLTLT Reynolds Miss Phillips Det Stn Sgt Morrow Mr King Mrs Pevc To Perth 21.6.87 Governor-General From Perth Lady Stephen Mr Smith LTCOL Warner Mrs Warner FLTLT Reynolds Miss Phillips Det Stn Sgt Morrow Mr King Mrs Pevc 24.6.87 Mr Sinclair MP Mr Mort Ms Hayes Mr Clark Ms O'Brian Ms McCauley Mr Dunn To Perth 25.6.87 Mr Sinclair MP Mr Mort Ms Hayes Mr Clark Ms O'Brian Ms McCauley Mr Grigson From Perth 29.6.87 Prime Minister To Perth Mr Sorby Mr Cassidy Ms Hunter Dr Emerson Ms Mittag Det Insp Martindale Snr Const Manning Mr Milne Ms Phelan Mr Grant Ms Dodson Mr Bowden Ms Ewart Mr Logue Mr Malon Ms Atkins Ms Legge Mr Goff Mr Gibson Mr Thompson Mr Soloman Mr Jay Mr Humphries Mr Walters 30.6.87 Prime Minister From Perth Mr Sorby Mr Cassidy Ms Hunter Dr Emerson Ms Mittag Det Insp Martindale Mr Coghan Ms Phelan Mr Grant Ms Dodson Mr Bowden Ms Ewart Mr Logue Mr Malon Ms Atkins Ms Legge Mr Goff Mr Thompson Mr Soloman Mr Humphries Mr Walters Mrs Hawke Ms Massey Det Sgt Sindel Snr Const Neilsen Mr Stanley 16.7.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr O'Callaghan Ms Crispin Mrs Ferguson Mrs Bisset Mr Edwards From Perth 16.8.87 Mr Dawkins MP Sen Walsh Mr Noonan Mr Strutynski Mr Webster From Perth 6.9.87 Mr Hand MP Mrs Hand Mr Pryor Ms Malon Ms Clark Mr Garran To Perth 7.9.87 Mr Hand MP Mrs Hand Mr Pryor Ms Malon Ms Clark Mr Garran From Perth 19.9.87 CAPT Lewis Ms Schofield Mr J. Peacock To Perth 20.9.87 Mr Bowen MP Mr Beazley MP Mr Palmer Mrs Bowen Mr Blair Mr Gear From Perth 24.9.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr Hickman Ms Cullen Ms Greenlees To Perth 28.9.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr Hickman Ms Cullen From Perth 27.10.87 Mr Dawkins MP To Perth 29.10.87 Dr Blewett MP Ms Moore Mr Butt To Perth 30.10.87 Dr Blewett MP Ms Moore Mr Butt From Perth 30.10.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr Sharp To Perth 1.11.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr Dawkins MP Mrs Ferguson Mr Phillips Mr Gear MP Mr Edwards MP Sen Walsh From Perth 6.11.87 Mr Beazley MP Mrs Ferguson To Perth 15.11.87 Prime Minister Ms Dale Sgt Andrews Mr Nihill Snr Const Ringering Dr Emerson To Perth 16.11.87 Prime Minister Ms Dale Sgt Andrews Mr Nihill Snr Const Ringering Det Sgt Sindel Dr Emerson Sen Cook Mr Gear MP Mr Edwards MP From Perth 4.12.87 Governor-General Lady Stephen LTCOL Warner FLTLT Reynolds Ms Phillips Det Stn Sgt Morrow Mr King Mrs Pevc To Perth 4.12.87 Mr Hand MP Mr Malon Mr Perkins Mr Winroe Mr O'Rourke Mr Gray From Perth 5.12.87 Governor-General Lady Stephen LTCOL Warner FLTLT Reynolds Ms Phillips Det Stn Sgt Morrow Ms Rawson Mr King Mrs Pevc From Perth 11.12.87 Mr Beazley MP Mr Lewis Ms Nye To Perth 15.12.87 Mr Beazley MP Miss Cullen Mr O'Callaghan From Perth 22.12.87 Mr Hayden MP Ms Courtney To Perth 7.1.88 Prime Minister Mr Nihill Ms Hunter Det Insp Martindale Snr Const Neilsen To Perth 8.1.88 Prime Minister Mr Nihill Ms Hunter Det Insp Martindale Snr Const Neilsen Snr Const Ranse From Perth 18.1.88 Mrs Kelly MP Mrs Bateup Miss Ellis CAPT McLeoud Mr Edwards From Perth 7.2.88 Governor-General Lady Stephen Dr Faunce Mr D. Smith Mrs Smith LTCOL Warner FLTLT Reynolds Ms Phillips Det Stn Sgt Morrow Mr King Mrs Bambic CPL Merrett Mrs Garnaut Mr Flood Mr L. Smith WGCDR Farquhar To Perth 8.2.88 Governor-General Lady Stephen Dr Faunce Mr D. Smith Mrs Smith LTCOL Warner FLTLT Reynolds Ms Phillips Det Stn Sgt Morrow Mr King Mrs Bambic CPL Merrett Mrs Garnaut Mr Flood Mr L. Smith WGCDR Farquhar From Perth 17.4.88 Mr Hand MP Mr Riley Ms O'Neill Mr Dillen Mr Grey From Perth 17.4.88 Mr Dawkins MP From Perth 19.4.88 HM The Queen To Perth HRH Duke of Edinburgh Duchess of Grafton Hon Mary Morrison Hon Sir William Heseltine RADM Sir Paul Greening Mr Fellowes Mr Janvrin CAPT Blacklock LTCOL Hay Mr McGrath AVM Severne Miss Damrel Miss Pearce Mr Parker Mr Hancock Mrs Murdo-Smith Miss Mays-Smith Miss Tyler CSUPT Beaton CINSP Griffin Miss Hoath Miss Prentice Mr Lovell Mrs Skinner Miss Thomas Mr Bray To Perth 19.4.88 Mr Mann To Perth Cont. Mr Jones Mr Willis Mr Absalom Mr McGrady Mr Jones Mr Gleed Mr Kirkpatrick Mr Grimston Mr Doncaster Mr Cook Mr Joss Mr McEvoy Mr Holdforth Mr Murray Mr Connolly Mr Martyn GPCAPT Perrow WGCDR Farquhar 20.4.88 Governor-General From Perth Lady Stephen Mr Smith FLTLT Reynolds Mr King Mrs Taylor Det Stn Sgt Morrow RADM Sir Paul Greening Mr Parker Mr Hancock Mr Mann Mr G. Jones Mr Willis Mr McGrady Mr H. Jones Mr Kirkpatrick Mr Doncaster Mr Cook Mr Murray Mr Connonlly Mr Bagley Mr Sandison WGCDR Farquhar 19.4.88 Governor-General Lady Stephen FLTLT Reynolds Det Stn Sgt Morrow Mr King Mrs Taylor Mr Smith To Perth 19.4.88 Prime Minister To Perth Mr Hollay Mr Cassidy Ms Watt Mr Codd Mr Howard MP Mrs Howard Mr Blanchard MP Sen Giles Det Snr Sgt Heggie Snr Const Turner Mr Brady 19.4.88 Prime Minister From Perth Mr Howard MP Mrs Howard Mr Brady Mr Blanchard MP Sen Giles Gen Gration CMDR Robertson LT Woods Mr Cassidy Ms Hollway Ms Watt Det Snr Sgt Heggie Snr Const Turner 20.4.88 Sen Richardson Mr Balderstone From Perth 22.4.88 HM The Queen To Perth HRH Duke of Edinburgh Duchess of Grafton Hon Mary Morrison Hon Sir William Heseltine Mr Hazell Mr Fellowes Mr Janvrin CAPT Blacklock LTCOL Hay Mr McGrath AVM Severne CSUPT Beaton CINSP Griffin Miss Bowler Mr Costello Det SUPT Pight Snr Sgt Watson Mr Crowther Mr Blight Mr Mitchell CSUPT Zanetti GPCAPT Perrow 22.4.88 HM The Queen To Perth HRH Duke of Edinburgh Duchess of Grafton Hon Mary Morrison Hon Sir William Heseltine Mr Hazell Mr Fellowes Mr Janvrin CAPT Blacklock LTCOL Hay Mr McGrath AVM Severne CSUPT Beaton CINSP Griffin Miss Bowler Mr Costello Det SUPT Pight Det Snr Sgt Holder Mr Crowther Mr Blight Mr Mitchell CSUPT Zanetti GPCAPT Perrow 24.4.88 HM The Queen From Perth HRH Duke of Edinburgh Duchess of Grafton Hon Mary Morrison Hon Sir William Heseltine Mr Hazell Mr Fellowes Mr Janrin CAPT Blacklock LTCOL Hay Mr McGrath AVM Severne Miss Damrel Miss Pearce Mrs Murdo-Smith Miss Mays-Smith Miss Tyler CSUPT Beaton CINSP Griffin Miss Prentice Mr Lovell Mrs Skinner Miss Thomas Mr Bray Mr Absalom Mr Gleed Mr Grimstom Mr Joss Mr McEvoy Mr Holdforth Mr Martyn Miss Bowler Miss Bourke DETSUPT Pight DETSGT Hunter Mr Costello Mr Galvin Mr Gourlay Mr Crowther Mr Ruming GPCAPT Perrow 4.5.88 Mr Holding MP Ms Keski-Nummi Ms De Silva Mr Cotton Mr Brown To Perth 6.5.88 Mr Holding MP Ms Keski-Nummi Ms De Silva Mr Cotton From Perth 8.5.88 Mr Beazley MP Mrs Beazley Ms Greenlees Ms Ferguson Sen Giles Ms Bissett From Perth (Question No. 413) Senator Tambling asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) When was the Liquidator appointed to wind up the operations of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (PMCCI). (2) Under what terms and conditions was the Liquidator appointed, and (a) how much has he been paid to date; and (b) what has been the cost of his air fares. (3) When was the prospect of a successor mining operation on Christmas Island (a) first mooted; and (b) taken seriously by the Minister's Department. (4) When was (a) each preliminary submission; and (b) each detailed proposal for a successor mining operation received. (5) When did the Liquidator first institute preventative maintenance measures on PMCCI assets and what measures have been taken. (6) When did the Liquidator begin assessing proposals. (7) Given the Liquidator's primary task was the disposal of the assets of PMCCI what have been his activities between his appointment and his assessment of proposals and what has been their cost. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) 11 November 1987. (2) The Liquidator's terms and conditions are set out in Part II of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (Winding Up) Ordinance 1987. The remuneration payable to the Liquidator are those fees from time to time recommended by the Insolvency Practitioners Association of Australia for a Principal Appointee Liquidator of a Company with similar allowances to those payable from time to time to the Secretary of a Department of the Commonwealth of Australia. (a) $110,974 as at 30 June 1988. (b) $17,568 as at 30 June 1988. (3) In accepting advice from the Directors of the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island that the Company was not financially viable and should be wound down by the end of 1986, the Government decided on 11 September 1985 that issues concerning the future of the Island should be examined by a Working Party. That Working Party was chaired by the (then) Department of Territories and included representatives from Commonwealth agencies with an interest in the Island, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the Phosphate Mining Company of Christmas Island, the Union of Christmas Island Workers (UCIW), the Christmas Island Services Corporation (CISC), the Minister's Office and Parliamentarians. The Working Party reported in December 1985 on a range of issues requiring immediate attention and foreshadowed proposals to be developed about the future. In respect of mining, it generally concluded that a viable successor mining operation was an option in the short-term provided there was acceptance that it would have a limited life and that it would have to operate on an economic basis. Against this background, the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (PMCCI) was established in late 1985. PMCCI found itself in financial difficulties during 1987, and the Government subsequently appointed a Liquidator to the Corporation on 11 November 1987. The Liquidator announced that PMCCI would close with effect from 31 December 1987. Following that, the UCIW commissioned consultants, Arthur Andersen and Company to examine the feasibility of phosphate mining continuing on the Island. That study concluded that future phosphate mining may be viable within certain parameters. In a media statement on 11 February 1988, Mr Punch rejected the findings of the Arthur Andersen report. He went on to say, however, that the Government would examine genuine proposals for mining if any were forthcoming. He also outlined the Government's conditions for any future mining on the Island. (4) Proponent (a)-submitted original proposal on 11 March 1988, and an amended proposal on 31 May 1988. Proponent (b)-submitted original proposal on 18 March 1988. That proposal was subsequently amended by letters dated 24 and 30 May 1988 and 17 June 1988. Proponent (c)-submitted original proposal on 18 March 1988. That proposal was subsequently amended by addenda dated 11 April, 31 May and 9 June 1988. (5) Immediately upon his appointment the Liquidator arranged for inventories and evaluations to be undertaken by a commercial firm of valuers, Rushton's Pty Limited. Following cessation of mining activities on 31 December 1987, the Liquidator took steps for the realization of assets which would then normally have taken place within two to three months. As a result of the cyclonic storm on 27 March 1988, and because of delays occasioned by the emergence of the possibility of future mining, a comprehensive preventative maintenance programme covering all items of electrical and mechanical equipment was implemented effectively from early April 1988. In addition to that programme the Liquidator through his insurers, arranged for the repair and reinstatement of buildings, plant and equipment damaged by the storm. This work is now largely completed. (6) On 12 May 1988, the Minister for the Arts and Territories requested the Liquidator to undertake an assessment of future mining proposals. On 18 May 1988 the Liquidator agreed to carry out this assessment. (7) (a) The Liquidator's process has involved the day to day business of winding up the Corporation which included: managing the operation from his appointment until mine closure; closing the mine; terminating the employment of staff; satisfying claims by creditors; attending to the realisation of off Island assets; preparing Island assets for disposal. (7) (b) See 2 (a) above. (Question No. 414) Senator Tambling asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) Was the insurance policy on the assets of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island (PMCCI) cancelled, cancelled in part or reduced; if so, what was (a) the original cover; (b) the details of the change in cover; (c) the sum received in return for this change; (d) the date of this change; (e) the assessment of damage to PMCCI's assets which had been covered by this policy, following the mini-cyclone which hit the Island earlier this year; (f) the cost and consequences of the abovementioned change in terms of this damage; and (g) the nature, details and cost to the Commonwealth of the settlement by which PMCCI's assets previously covered by this policy are being repaired. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The insurance policy on the assets of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island was fully in place for the period 1 July 1987 to 30 June 1988. It has been continued in the current financial year at the same rate. (Question No. 420) Senator Lewis asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) What investments have been made by the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) in 1986/87 and 1987/88. (2) Of these investments, what percentage has been direct equity investments and what is the nature of the other investments. (3) Of the AIDC's investments in this period, which investments are considered by: (a) the AIDC; and (b) by the Government to the ``venture capital'' investments. (4) With the exception of the Anti-Malaria Vaccine Research Project, has the AIDC provided any funds or given any guarantees to support projects under the National Interest Provisions of section 8a of the AIDC Act. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) AIDC operates in a competitive market environment and bases its investment decisions on commercial principles. As such, it adheres to confidentiality conditions expected of a financial corporation acting in accordance with sound business practices. However, statistical information concerning the Corporation's financial activities is given in its annual reports. In addition, some financial and descriptive information regarding specific investments is provided after consultation with the relevant clients and their consent obtained for publication. In the Corporation's 1986/87 Annual Report it was disclosed that total loans and investments for 1986/87 were $558.5 million. Of this figure, commercial loans accounted for $512 million and equity risk investments $46.5 million. The corresponding financial information for 1987/88 will be shown in the Corporation's Annual Report for 1987/88 which will be tabled later in the year. (2) In 1986/87 the percentage of equity risk investments made by the Corporation was 8.3 percent of total loans and equity investments for that year. The remaining investments by the Corporation for 1986/87 were normal banking type financings, principally commercial loans. (3) The Corporation considers, and the Government agrees, that at the end of 1986/87 some $28 million were invested in relatively high-risk equity investments commonly referred to as venture capital. (4) Apart from the Anti-Malaria Vaccine Project, no investments have been made and no guarantees have been given to any other project under the National Interest Provisions of the AIDC Act. (Question No. 435) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: Will the Minister supply a complete list of the names of the invited guests who attended the official opening of the new Parliament House by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, on 9 May 1988, indicating by whom, or on whose recommendation they were invited, and the hall in which they sat. Senator Button —The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I understand that the guest list for the ceremonies and functions associated with the opening of the new Parliament House occupies 715 pages. I will arrange for a copy of this list to be made available to Senator Baume, with the additional information he has requested, except that in accordance with my reply on 2 June 1988 to a previous question by him on 23 May 1988 the names of guests nominated by the Prime Minister, Presiding Officers and the Leader of the Opposition will not be included. (Question No. 439) Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: What has been the approximate cost of the maintenance of the Old Customs House, Commercial Road, Port Adelaide, for each of the last 5 years. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1983-84...$59,000 1984-85...$36,000 1985-86...$29,000 1986-87...$89,000 1987-88...$8,000 It should be noted that these figures relate to maintenance of the complex of five main buildings, of which the Old Customs House is the most significant. (Question No. 446) Senator Michael Baume asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) (a) Did the Director of Public Relations for the Department of Transport and Communications attend the Portuguese Grand Prix for the filming of motorcycle racer Wayne Gardner and (b) what was the purpose of the filming. (2) Was an Assistant Director of Public Relations for the Department recalled from long service leave in France in order to also help supervise the filming at the Portuguese Grand Prix. (3) What was the total cost for (a) the Director's travel to, and attendance at, the Grand Prix and (b) the Assistant Director's travel to, and attendance at, the Grand Prix, including the amount of compensation paid for the interruption of his leave. (4) What professional film-making qualifications do each of the officers possess. (5) (a) Was the position of this Assistant Director advertised, and were interviews of applicants conducted. If not, what procedure was used for his appointment. (b) Is this standard Departmental practice for such high level positions and (c) has this Assistant Director served in at least two other Departments with the Director. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Director of Public Affairs did supervise videotaping at the motorcycle Grand Prix in Spain on 1 May 1988. This was done in conjunction with travel to London on other business. (b) The purpose of the visit was to arrange a local film crew and to supervise the videotaping of an endorsement by Australia's World Motorcycle Champion, Wayne Gardner, of the Federal Office of Road Safety's ``Right Rider'' video training package for novice motorcyclists. The endorsement of this package was offered free-of-charge by Mr Gardner as a community service to promote the acceptance of the package by the high-risk target audience of young novice motorcyclists. The package has won a number of local and international awards including a prestigious International Film and Television Festival of New York award for excellence. (2) There is no position of Assistant Director of Public Relations, or Public Affairs, within the Department of Transport and Communications. No officer was recalled from leave or otherwise authorised to assist. (3) (a) The add-on cost of the Director's visit was $285 in airfares, $425 travelling allowance, and $380 accommodation expenses. (b) Not applicable. (4) The Director of Public Affairs is a professionally qualified journalist who has been responsible for the production of a wide range of highly successful road and sea safety videos. He was personally responsible for the conception, development and execution of the ``Right Rider'' package, including the oversight of script development and filming. The package has received widespread national and international recognition and is now in use by most motorcycle authorities, organisations and dealers throughout Australia. (5) Not applicable. Senator Button —On 18 February 1988 (Hansard, page 225), Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, a question without notice regarding threatened industrial action by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) over the decision by Caltex Australia Ltd to contract out the distribution of its products to the Linfox organisation. Senator Chaney asked what steps the Government had taken to ensure that the TWU did not proceed with the action threatened. In my reply, I undertook to refer the matter to the Minister for Industrial Relations. The Minister has provided the following response: Clearly, the announced sale by Caltex of its road tanker fleet and the contracting out of its product distribution function to the Linfox organisation was a matter of concern to the TWU. It was unfortunate, however, that, in addressing these concerns TWU members took industrial action which resulted in disruption to petrol supplies at different times particularly in New South Wales and Victoria. Further, the New South Wales Government considered it necessary in the circumstances to utilise the emergency powers provided for in State legislation to ensure a return to a normal supply situation. The matters in dispute were, of course, the subject of proceedings in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Indeed, the dispute, insofar as it related to the siutation in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, was the subject of proceedings before Leary C on 22 February during which arrangements were developed between the parties which led to a decision by TWU members on 24 February to cease industrial action in those States. As far as the industrial action in New South Wales was concerned, the matter was heard in compulsory conference by Boulton J on Sunday, 28 February 1988. His Honour's recommendation at the conclusion of those proceedings called for, inter alia, cessation of industrial action in New South Wales and negotiations between the parties on particular issues in dispute. Further, following the return to work by TWU members on 29 February in compliance with the directions issued by the State Government, His Honour held a further hearing on 1 March 1988 at which he issued an order: directing that the status quo be maintained for 30 days (ie no industrial action and no further implementation of the Caltex/Linfox arrangements); and directing that negotiations involving the TWU, ACTU, Caltex and Linfox take place over various issues in dispute and that these negotiations be chaired by a member of the Commission. These negotiations commenced on 2 March 1988 and a series of private conferences chaired by Boulton J ensued during March. On 25 March TWU members employed by Caltex met and rejected a redundancy package offered by the company. Immediate strike action over the issue was taken by the company's Victorian drivers. Boulton J heard the matter on 28 March and on the following day directed, inter alia, that the Caltex offer be extended until 30 March. The company indicated the offer would then be withdrawn. On 30 March Caltex drivers met and voted to accept the redundancy package leading to a cessation of the industrial action in Victoria. The Government monitored developments in the dispute at the time and was supportive of the role played by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government's view is that the Commission is the proper forum in which the parties should seek to resolve industrial issues upon which they cannot reach agreement. Recourse to the established industrial relations machinery is of course preferable to direct action of the type which required the New South Wales Government to take the action it did. Senator Button —On 1 June 1988 (Hansard, page 3340), Senator Harradine asked me in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters a question without notice concerning the level of youth employment in the Australian Public Service and what steps the Goverment is taking to ensure that youth get their fair share of Public Service Jobs. I undertook to obtain the figures and provide Senator Harradine with an answer. The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator's questions, based on information provided by the Public Service Commission: In relation to the first question: the proportion of youth in the Service is declining-in December 1987 young people aged 20 or under constituted 3.8% of officers (a table setting out the age distribution of permanent staff is attached) the number of young people applying for appointment to the Service is also declining. In 1979 the proportion of young applicants for Clerical Assistant positions was 64% and for Clerical Administrative Class 1 positions 46.7%. This declined to 45.5% and 37.2% respectively by 1985 the proportion of young people being appointed to the Service is declining-in 1980 young people aged under 20 constituted 26.1% of appointments. In 1984 this declined to 22.4% and in 1986 to 18.6% this trend is not the result of any deliberate policy of discrimination against youth in the processes for entry to the Service entry to the Service is based on an assessment of the relative ability of applicants to perform the work required factors which can be identified as contributing to the decline in the level of youth in the Service are: (i) Higher school retention rates - retention rates for the final year of secondary schooling have risen from 28% in 1966 to 53% in 1987; in the ACT, a large recruiting centre, the retention rate is 79% (ii) Increased participation in higher education - the number of students enrolled in full-time higher education courses increased by 18% between 1976 and 1986. In the same period, the number of youth in the general population increased by only 8% - increased school retention and higher education participation rates have decreased the number of young applicants for positions in the Service, particularly in the younger age groups, and increased the average age of young people entering the Service (iii) Removal of discriminatory employment practices - the bar on married women remaining in the Service was removed in 1966. Upper age limits for appointments to base grade clerical and keyboard positions were removed in 1973, while upper limits on the number of graduates appointed were abolished in 1978 - all of these measures have tended to reduce the appointment opportunities for youth (iv) Greater competition in the labour market - generally buoyant labour market conditions until the early 1970s meant that young people seeking to enter the Service did not face strong competition - since the mid 1970s a generally tighter labour market has meant that young people have been required to compete more strenuously with older applicants (v) Constraints on the growth of the Service and a decline in separation rates - constraints on the growth of the Service since the mid 1970s have resulted in a reduction of appointment opportunities - overall separation rates for officers of the Service have declined from 10.4% in 1966 to 7.5% in 1984 - combined, these trends have further limited appointment opportunities available for young people the decline of youth in the Public Service is not limited to Australia. For example, the Public Service Commission of Canada in its 1987 annual report noted that the proportion of youth (those under 25) in the Canadian Public Service had dropped from 14.1% in 1977 to 3.3% in 1987. In relation to the second question: The Public Service Commission is concerned at the decline in the number of young people in the Service and supports a recent recommendation of Joint Council that the Commonwealth Employment Service (which now has the responsibility for operational aspects of clerical recruitment to the Service) should investigate the prospects for maximising the numbers of young people applying for Service positions through: greater publicity in schools better targeted general recruitment publicity the timing of selection tests at the end of the school year so as to maximise the numbers of young people the continued expansion of youth traineeships in the Service. There was an initial intake of 610 trainees in early 1986, with a further 162 taken on later that year. Some 855 trainees were employed in 1987. The Government has announced that young people aged 16 to 18 without Year 12 seeking to enter the Service in areas where traineeships exist, should do so via traineeships. It is anticipated that this will provide some 1500 traineeship opportunities this year. While these measures will be helpful in increasing the proportion of young people in the Service, it is unlikely that there will be a significant turnaround, and certainly not to the high levels experienced in the 1960s. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF PERMANENT OFFICERS A.P.S. PERMANENT STAFF; AGE AND SEX DECEMBER 1987 Age (years) Number Men Women Total Proportion (per cent) Men Women Total 16 12 37 49 0.01 0.03 0.03 17 56 208 264 0.04 0.14 0.18 18 217 734 951 0.15 0.50 0.65 19 519 1,314 1,833 0.36 0.90 1.25 20 744 1,746 2,490 0.51 1.19 1.70 21 1,014 2,238 3,252 0.69 1.53 2.23 22 1,457 2,646 4,103 1.00 1.81 2.81 23 1,691 3,018 4,709 1.16 2.07 3.22 24 1,856 2,923 4,779 1.27 2.00 3.27 25 2,107 3,030 5,137 1.44 2.07 3.52 26 2,352 3,061 5,413 1.61 2.10 3.70 27 2,434 2,980 5,414 1.67 2.04 3.71 28 2,569 2,674 5,243 1.76 1.83 3.59 29 2,667 2,538 5,205 1.83 1.74 3.56 30 2,810 2,338 5,148 1.92 1.60 3.52 31 2,950 2,077 5,027 2.02 1.42 3.44 32 2,914 1,949 4,863 1.99 1.33 3.33 33 2,930 1,896 4,826 2.01 1.30 3.30 34 3,150 1,733 4,883 2.16 1.19 3.34 35 3,210 1,687 4,897 2.20 1.15 3.35 36 3,088 1,616 4,704 2.11 1.11 3.22 37 3,309 1,634 4,943 2.26 1.12 3.38 38 3,248 1,540 4,788 2.22 1.05 3.28 39 3,153 1,437 4,590 2.16 0.98 3.14 40 3,370 1,409 4,779 2.31 0.96 3.27 41 3,048 1,390 4,438 2.09 0.95 3.04 42 2,470 1,094 3,564 1.69 0.75 2.44 43 2,146 1,006 3,152 1.47 0.69 2.16 44 2,026 947 2,973 1.39 0.65 2.03 45 1,890 886 2,776 1.29 0.61 1.90 46 1,698 762 2,460 1.16 0.52 1.68 47 1,564 737 2,301 1.07 0.50 1.57 48 1,579 654 2,233 1.08 0.45 1.53 49 1,498 694 2,192 1.03 0.47 1.50 50 1,330 597 1,927 0.91 0.41 1.32 51 1,246 525 1,771 0.85 0.36 1.21 52 1,213 473 1,686 0.83 0.32 1.15 53 1,150 401 1,551 0.79 0.27 1.06 54 1,116 411 1,527 0.76 0.28 1.05 55 1,054 349 1,403 0.72 0.24 0.96 56 939 295 1,234 0.64 0.20 0.84 57 940 303 1,243 0.64 0.21 0.85 58 916 281 1,197 0.63 0.19 0.82 59 858 270 1,128 0.59 0.18 0.77 60 724 193 917 0.50 0.13 0.63 61 561 163 724 0.38 0.11 0.50 62 465 129 594 0.32 0.09 0.41 63 352 108 460 0.24 0.07 0.31 64 287 81 368 0.20 0.06 0.25 TOTAL 84,897 61,212 146,109 58.11 41.89 100.00 SOURCE: Continuous Record of Personnel. (Question No. 203) Senator Newman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 18 February 1988: (1) How many officers and from which departments, are reimbursed for all fees, under the provisions of paragraph 2.28 of the Public Service Board Personnel Management Manual: Volume 7-Guidelines on Studies Assistance (October 1986). (2) What is the total amount payable by each department in respect of these fees and of the amount, how much relates to the $263 tertiary fee. (3) If no $263 tertiary fees are being paid, when was the decision taken that they not be paid, by whom, and on what grounds are they not being paid when the guidelines provide for the reimbursement of all fees. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1 to 3) The current `Guidelines on Studies Assistance' do not provide for the reimbursement of all fees. The guidelines provide for reimbursement of compulsory `tuition' or `examination' fees (the $263 higher education administration charge is not a `tuition' or `examination' fee). The higher education administration charge may be reimbursed to a small minority of students: where the student was given approval to study prior to 1 January 1981; where the student was employed under cadetship or traineeship conditions of service; or where under full-time study arrangements the Secretary of the Department approves payment of fees and charges under section 90 (3) of the Public Service Act. The Public Service Commission does not keep statistics on studies assistance. In December 1986 the studies assistance function was devolved to departments, which are now responsible for keeping studies assistance and fees reimbursement statistics. I am not prepared to authorise the extensive research that would be required to ascertain the precise number of students who fall into these categories. (Question No. 285) Senator Sanders asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 25 March 1988: (1) Has the Minister received correspondence and photos from Mrs E. Mayer of Lane Cove, New South Wales, detailing the effects of dredging in the Heron Island Harbour, the island and adjacent parts of the Great Barrier Reef. (2) What is the purpose of the dredging operations. (3) Are those operations damaging the Great Barrier Reef. (4) What power does the Federal Government have to prevent further damage. (5) What action has the Federal Government taken to prevent further damage. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. My office responded to Mrs Mayer's letter on my behalf on 22 January 1988. (2) Dredging was undertaken for the maintenance of the existing entrance channel and harbour, to allow some expansion of the harbour basin to facilitate manoeuvring of a new catamaran ferry, for the repair of existing bund walls, and for the construction of a jetty. Siltation of the harbour over the years since it was last dredged had been substantial and there had been significant damage to the bund wall which had been designed to minimise such siltation. This could not be allowed to continue. (3) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in conjunction with the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Heron Island Management Board, carefully considered this proposal before the Authority issued a permit for the work to commence. The immediate impact of the dredging work did give cause for concern and I am advised that the sediment plume and spoil heaps were unattractive during the course of the project. I am now advised that the water clarity adjacent to the dredge site has returned to pre-dredging condition. Very little coral damage, attributable to the dredging operation, has been observed at Heron Island. Two outcrops of brain coral on the reef slope, each about 1.5 metres high and 3 metres in diameter, have suffered greater than 50 percent mortality. The complete colonies have not died at this stage and may recover over a period of years. Several very small coral heads on the reef flat appear to have died as a result of silt damage. Several small areas of branching corals on the reef slope have been affected. The total coral area affected is some 30 square metres. The total area of Heron Island Reef is about 37.5 million square metres. (4) The waters up to low water mark adjacent to Heron Island are part of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and as such are subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. In addition any proposed activity which involves a decision by the Marine Park Authority (or by any other arm of the Commonwealth Government) and which may have a significant environmental effect, would be subject to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, which refers to the dumping of wastes or other matter from ships, aircraft or platforms into Australian waters, confers wide powers to control such activities and to require monitoring and other environment protection oriented actions. (5) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in close consultation with Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, the University of Queensland and P & O (the owners of the Heron Island Resort) have formulated a monitoring program with a considerably expanded scope over that which was conducted during the course of the dredging operation. The monitoring program will emphasise consideration of the reef slope, the beach rock and the chronic stress resulting from persistent silt resuspension. Geological and geomechanical components will include consideration of beach profile, sediment distribution and the washout of silt/mud fractions. Experts and consultants outside the Marine Park Authority and Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service will also be used for some aspects of the program to ensure the cross-section of opinion available in assessing findings is maximised. I have been assured that the monitoring program which has been established will result in the development of more comprehensive guidelines for the assessment of dredging operations than has been available in the past, and that this will go a long way in eliminating the concerns which have arisen at Heron Island. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has advised me that the amount of turbidity and sediment transport caused by the operation exceeded the expectations of the design engineers, the Authority and the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. The damage caused by the operation is temporary, but any future dredging operations in the Marine Park will be subject to more stringent restrictions as a result of this experience. (Question No. 289) Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: (1) Has the Minister or his representatives met with any US defence contractors since March 1983 in order to impress on these companies that Australia's capacity to purchase weapons from them is being compromised by the United States trading policies. (2) If so, what was the date of each of these meetings, where were they held, what were the names of the defence contractors and company representatives, and if representatives of the Minister met the contractors, what were their names. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. On a broader level, the Minister and senior Australian Defence officials have raised this matter on a number of occasions. For example, a communique, issued following the annual Australia/United States Ministerial Talks of August 1986 between the Australian Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence and the US Secretaries of State and Defense, said that both countries reaffirmed their commitment to holding and reversing protectionism and to reducing and dismantling trade restrictions, with Australia noting among other things that protectionist policies would impair Australia's ability to work effectively in cooperation with its allies and friends. Following the discussion, the Australian Minister for Defence pointed out at the joint press conference the large Australian expenditure on arms in the US and emphasized that Australia's capacity to sustain that program depended on our economic strength being maintained. (2) In relation to meetings with US defence contractors, on 21 April 1987 Mr Woods, the Secretary of the Department of Defence, was the primary speaker at a meeting with a group of US defence contractors at the Australian Embassy in Washington. Details of that meeting are subject to question on notice No. 288. Subsequent follow-up meeting were held on 27 May and 20 July 1987 with smaller groups of the same US defence contractors. In a speech to major US defence contractors and senior US officials in October 1987, Mr Woods referred to the damage to Australia's balance of trade resulting from US trade policy, and the logical consequence of its being more difficult for Australia to afford to buy US Defence equipment. Similar sentiments have been expressed to groups of contractors on various occasions, by the Head of the Australian Defence Staff in Washington and by other Australian Defence officials. For example, in early September 1986 the then Head of the Australian Defence Staff, Major General H. J. Coates wrote to the heads of the following principal US companies with which Australia has had defence dealings: Boeing-Verol Westinghouse Electronics Todd Shipyards Rockwell International FMC Corporation Hughes Aircraft Company Lockhead Corporation Boeing Aerospace General Dynamics McDonnell Douglas United Technologies Singer-Link Major General Coates made follow-up visits to: Boeing Vertol-9 September 1986 Rockwell and Lockhead, Los Angeles-10 September 1986 Boeing Aerospace, Seattle-11 September 1986 McDonnell Douglas-16 September 1986 Hughes Aircraft, Los Angeles-September 1986 Todd Pacific, Seattle-11 September 1986. The then Air Attache, Air Commodore A. Reed made similar visits to: Singer-Link Grumman Aerospace Westinghouse - 10 September 1986 - 10 September 1986 - 11 September 1986. In almost all occasions, access was achieved to the highest executives of the Coporation ie. President, Vice President or Chairman of the Board. The Minister and his official have had many other meetings since 1983 with defence contractors on a range of issues relating to the large number of procurements being undertaken by the Defence Department. Generally the meetings have not been called specifically for the purpose stated in the question although the opportunity has been taken on appropriate occasions to make that point. (Question No. 297) Senator Powell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 April 1988: (1) How many Canberra based Government departments, or sections of departments, have been relocated since the most recent major restructuring of departments and portfolios. (2) Which units were they and what are their previous and current locations. (3) How many Canberra based departments or sections are scheduled to be relocated in the next 6 months. (4) Which units are they, where are they presently located and where is it anticipated they will move to. (5) What forms of efficiencies and economics are predicted as a result of these relocations. (6) How have they been quantified and what are the figures derived from the calcultions undertaken. (7) What costs have been incurred or are anticipated as a result of the moves which: (a) have already taken place; and (b) are being contemplated. Senator Robert Ray —The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) There are thirteen Canberra-based Government departments which have had units relocated as a direct consequence of the major restructuring of departments and portfolios. Records are not kept of the names of the particular units relocated. Details are as follows: Department Previous Location Current Location Administrative Services West Block-Parkes, Cameron Offices-Belconnen, Kodak House-Dickson, DHC House-Dickson, Telecom House-Dickson, Canberra House-City. 111 Alinga St-City, Cameron Offices-Belonnen, DHC House-Dickson, Telecom House-Dickson, Canberra House-City. Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and the Territories Tasman House-City, Silverton Centre-City, CML Building-City. Tasman House-City, Silverton Centre-City, CML Building-City. ACT Administration Robert Garran Offices-Barton, Treasury Building-Parkes. Wales Centre-City Attorney Generals Robert Garran Offices-Barton, West Block-Parkes. West Block-Parkes, Robert Garran Offices-Barton. Community Services and Health Alexander/Albermarle Offices, Penrhyn House-Phillip. Penrhyn House-Phillip, Alexander/Albermarle Offices. Education, Employment & Training Benjamin Offices-Belconnen, Edmund Barton Building-Barton. Cosmopolitan Building-Phillip, AMP Building-City. Finance McLachlan Offices-Barton. Treasury Building-Parkes. Foreign Affairs & Trade Civic Offices-City, Edmund Barton Building-Barton. Edmund Barton Building-Barton, Administrative Building-Parkes. Immigration, Local Govt & Ethnic Affairs Qantas House-City. Benjamin Offices-Belconnen. Industrial Relations McLachlan Offices-Barton, Russell Offices Jolimont Centre-City, 1 Farrell Place-City. Industry, Technology & Commerce Oatley Court-Belconnen, DHC House-Dickson, Benjamin Offices-Belconnen, Edmund Barton Building-Barton. CNCC Offices-City. Primary Industries & Energy Jolimont Centre-City, Edmund Barton Building-Barton. Edmund Barton Building-Barton. Prime Minister & Cabinet Edmund Barton Building-Barton, West Block-Parkes. McLachlan Offices-Barton. Transport & Communications Benjamin Offices-Belconnen, Drakeford/Cox Building-City, Trace Building-City. Benjamin Offices-Belconnen, Drakeford/Cox Building-City, Trace Building-City. These departments relocated staff within and between buildings. (3) and (4) There are five Canberra based departments with units scheduled to be relocated in the next six months. Details are as follows: Department Proposed Location Space to be vacated Community Services & Health Francis Chambers-City. Telecom House-Dickson. Industrial Relations Jolimont Centre-City. 1 Farrell Place-City, London Court-City, Scott House-City, David Temple House-City, CML Building-City. Industry, Technology and Commerce CCNC Buildings 4 & 5-City. Telecom House-Dickson. Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Tobruk House, City, Silverton Centre-City. Sydney Building-City, CML Building-City, Ansett Centre-City, Silverton Centre-City. Education, Employment & Training 1 Farrel Place-City. MLC Tower-Phillip, Dundas Court-Phillip. (5) It is expected that efficiencies and economics will flow from the colocation of departmental units and functions. (6) and (7) These are matters for the individual departments concerned. The costs incurred by the Department of Administrative Services in facilitating these relocations have been met within existing appropriations. (Question No. 333) Senator Archer asked the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, upon notice, on 18 May 1988: What is being done to help replenish the ozone layer in terms of- (a) steps taken to prevent further depletion; and (b) artificial means. Senator Richardson —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (a) The Government attaches great importance to protection of the layer of ozone gas in the upper atmosphere which screens out harmful ultraviolet radiation. It is a global problem which requires action by all countries, but especially developed countries, to control ozone depleting chemicals. Australia is a party to the Vienna Convention on Protection of the Ozone Layer. We are also a signatory to the Montreal Protocol to this Convention which specifies controls on chemicals known to deplete ozone levels. The Government intends to ratify this Protocol as soon as implementing legislation has been enacted. The Government is proceeding with drafting of legislation to control ozone depleting substances. This is a high priority and it is intended that the legislation be introduced into the Parliament this Sittings. The proposed legislation will place Australia at the forefront of action internationally to address this problem. The proposed legislation will include provisions to give effect to the Montreal Protocol, principally through quotas applied to the manufacturers and importers of the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons which are of concern. Importantly, the proposed legislation will also provide for introduction of comprehensive measures to limit emissions from the various applications of these substances. CFCs are used mainly in refrigeration and air conditioning systems, in production of some plastic foams, in some aerosol sprays and as solvents. Halons are used for some fire protection purposes. The goal will be to achieve the maximum practicable reductions in the emission of these substances. Through a joint Government/Industry working group, industry has developed initial proposals for reduction of emissions in each of the key industry sectors. Those proposals show that by utilising available alternative substances and technologies, reductions in emissions to the order of 50% can be achieved by 1992. For example, the elimination of CFC propellants in aerosol sprays, in all except limited essential uses, will alone result in reduction of the national consumption of CFCs by about 30% by the end of 1989. However, it is important to note that the initial industry plans also identify potential for substantial further reductions to be achieved as new alternative substances and technologies, some of which are already in an advanced stage of development, become available. Under the proposed legislation, new initiatives for reducing emissions will be able to be adopted as they are developed. Further important scientific findings have been made in the year since the Montreal Protocol was concluded, for example concerning the role of CFCs in the increasing losses of ozone over Antarctica-the so-called ozone hole. The CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have provided recently an assessment of the current state of the science on depletion of the ozone layer. Australia will take an active part in the review of the provisions of the Montreal Protocol which is to be completed by 1990. In light of the latest scientific findings, there is a strong likelihood that the Protocol provisions will be made more stringent as a result of that review. (b) Replenishment of the ozone layer by artificial means is apparently not a feasible solution to the problem. The effectiveness of the ozone layer is dependent on naturally occurring chemical reactions in the upper atmosphere which result in the continual production and destruction of ozone at rates which maintain a dynamic balance. The present international scientific view is that the reduction of emissions of ozone depleting substances which have been identified as interfering with these natural processes is the most appropriate way of ensuring that the dynamic balance is restored over time. It is important to recognise that in the lower atmosphere ozone acts as a pollutant, particularly in relation to its exacerbation of respiratory problems and its toxic effects on plant life, even at concentrations slightly above normal. Atmospheric ozone also contributes to the ``greenhouse effect''. Artificial production of ozone is therefore likely to cause other potentially severe imbalances in the atmosphere. (Question No. 339) Senator MacGibbon asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 20 May 1988: (1) Have any grants been made to the Inventors' Association of Australia; if so, how much was granted and in what years. (2) Was the grant made to the Association for administrative expenses, or was it intended that it be given to support the work done by individual inventors. (3) Was it intended that this grant be used for the purchase of office equipment. (4) Was any part of the grant, over any of the years it was given, used to employ any consultants; if so, was the purpose covered under the intention of the grant. (5) Has there been any follow up on how the grant was expended; if not, why not. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Grants totalling $250,000 have been made by this Department and its predecessor, the Department of Science and Technology, to the Inventors' Association of Australia (IAA). In an agreement dated 7 June 1984, the then Department of Science and Technology, recognising the potential of the IAA to assist the Government's objective of encouraging innovation and invention, committed $25,000 to restructure the Association to achieve a more professional and effective national organisation. The final payments under this agreement were made by the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce in 1985. On 14 June 1985, my Department signed a further agreement with the IAA providing funds totalling $225,000 over three years at the rate of $75,000 per year, payable in advance. However, the IAA was faced with cash flow difficulties in March 1986 and the instalments were paid as follows: $45,000 in June 1985 $75,000 in March 1986 $30,000 in July 1986 $75,000 in May 1987 (2) The grants were intended to assist the IAA to provide inventors and entrepreneurs with an infrastructure to facilitate access to information, expertise, services, facilities and other resources. To achieve this the Association needed to project a high profile, gain the confidence of individuals and organisations involved in the innovation process and conduct all its operations with a high degree of professionalism and efficiency. A Corporate Development Strategy, forming part of the later agreement, includes a statement of the IAA's proposed expenditure for the years covered by the agreement. Less than 30% of the proposed total expenditure per year was for administrative expenses, such as the lease of a photocopier, printing, stationery, rent, telephone and other necessary expenses. The Association does not provide financial support for individual inventors and it was not intended that the grants be used for this purpose. (3) The Corporate Development Strategy outlined the intention to lease a photocopier and purchase a computer. To achieve the goals of greater efficiency and professionalism, this and any similar expenditure on office equipment falls within the intention of the grants. (4) Use by the IAA of part of its funds, (of which my Department contributed only about one third), to employ consultants was not contrary to the intent of the funding arrangements outlined in the agreement. (5) My Department has been provided with information on the IAA's activities and expenditure. Financial statements for the years ending 30 June 1986 and 1987 have been received. The IAA is currently preparing a financial statement and a report outlining the activities undertaken by the Association for the 87/88 financial year. The IAA's achievements in terms of fulfilling the agreement will be assessed when this final report is received. (Question No. 404) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) Is the Minister aware of the heavy burden placed on pharmacists-particularly those in small pharmacies in rural and remote areas-to maintain an accurate and up to date file system for the purposes of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. (2) Is the Minister aware of the great distress that can occur when pharmacists are forced to refuse to fill out prescriptions in circumstances where pensioners forget or lose their Pharmaceutical Benefits Card. (3) Does the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme impose too great an impost on these pharmacists when, in addition to their normal pharmacy work, they are required to act as agents for the Commonwealth in maintaining these records of Pharmaceutical Benefits numbers; if not, why not. Senator Cook —The Minister for Housing and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. However, it is important for pharmacists and the Government to be able to account for almost $1 billion of taxpayers' funds. (2) As in other areas where pensioners are granted concessions, they must establish eligibility for concessional treatment. While the Government recognises that this may cause inconvenience in some cases, this statutory requirement is necessary to ensure that proper control is exercised over the expenditure of taxpayers' funds. In the event of the loss of a pensioner's entitlement card, an interim card will be issued immediately by the local Social Security office on application by the pensioner. (3) No. When determining pharmacists' remuneration, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal takes into account the workload associated with dispensing a pharmaceutical benefit, including keeping records required under the Scheme. In fact, the Tribunal has recently undertaken a survey of pharmacies to ascertain the cost of dispensing pharmaceutical benefits. (Question No. 408) Senator McLean asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) What proportion of the total yearly budget of the Department of Community Services and Health is spent on medical research. (2) What proportion of the Gross Domestic Product is spent on medical research. (3) How do these figures compare with the member country of the OECD which spends most on medical research, and the member country of the OECD which spends least on medical research. (4) Have there been any significant changes in the proportion of funds spent on medical research in Australia in the last ten years. Senator Cook —The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) In 1986-87, the Department spent $75.4 million on health related research. This represented 0.93 per cent of total departmental outlays. Projected expenditure for 1987-88 is $84.0 million (0.95 per cent of departmental outlays). (2) In 1986-87, research and development expenditure in Australia directed towards the socio-economic objective of health represented 0.11 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). An alternative classification of research and development expenditure is by field of science. Using this classification, research and development expenditure in the medical sciences amounted to 0.082 per cent of GDP in 1986-87. (3) Data for total research and development expenditure on either health or medical sciences for the OECD nations are unavailable. However, data are available on the level of government-funded health research and development. In 1986, the USA Government-funded research and development on the socio-economic objective of health was 0.16 per cent of GDP. As a percentage of GDP, this was the highest of all the OECD nations. The lowest rate of government-funded health research funding for OECD nations (for which data are available) was Spain, where Government-funded health research and development amounted to 0.016 per cent of GDP. The median for all OECD countries (excluding Australia) was 0.067 per cent of GDP. Government-funded health research in Australia amounted to 0.085 per cent of GDP in 1984-85 (later figures are not yet available). (4) Over the period 1976-77 to 1986-87, research and development expenditure in Australia on the socio-economic objective of health has increased by 167 per cent in real terms. (Question No. 415) Senator Tambling asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) Was a short-term Director appointed for the Christmas Island Services Corporation earlier this year; if so, (a) when; (b) for what period; and (c) at what remuneration. (2) Was this position gazetted and advertised; if so, when and where; if not, how was this person selected and is this the usual procedure. (3) Did any agency within the Minister's portfolio formally interview (a) this person; and (b) any other person; if so, how many times. (4) Did any Government agencies outside the Minister's portfolio have input into this appointment; if so, which ones. (5) Is this appointment full-time or part-time. (6) Did the short-term Director apply in writing for this position; if not, how did the section of his Department responsible for this position become aware of his interest. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes; pending the arrival of the replacement substantive Director on 19 July 1988, two persons were appointed as Acting Directors. (a) and (b) (i) 9 March to 30 March 1988 and 22 June to 18 July 1988. (ii) 31 March to 21 June 1988. (c) (i) $42,763 per annum (ii) $44,513 per annum (2) The position is a statutory office and short term vacancies in such offices are not normally gazetted or advertised. One person who occupied the position was the next senior officer in the Corporation. The other was well known to the Department as the Department of Administrative Services Project Manager (Engineer Class 5) formerly responsible for works on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and as such had the required skills and qualifications for a short term posting. The procedures followed in filling the position were those usually observed in filling short term vacancies in statutory offices in the external territories. (3) No. (4) Yes. The West Australian Department of Local Government was asked if it could nominated a short term acting Director from local government in that State but no suitable person was available. (5) Full Time. (6) No; see (2) above. (Question No. 416) Senator Tambling asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Arts and Territories, upon notice, on 1 June 1988: (1) Can the Minister provide proof that all groups who submitted proposals for a successor mining operation on Christmas Island were given until the end of April to provide submissions to him; if so, when and how was each group advised of this. Senator Richardson —The Minister for the Arts and Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) A report by Arthur Andersen and Company, consultants commissioned by the Union of Christmas Island Workers, concluded that future phosphate mining on Christmas Island may be viable within certain parameters. In a media statement on 11 February 1988 Mr Punch rejected the findings of that report. He went on to say, however, that the Government would examine genuine proposals for mining if any were forthcoming, but these would necessarily need to be made quickly because the Liquidator's work was well advanced. He also outlined the Government's conditions for any future mining on the Island. A number of expressions of interest and three firm proposals to recommence phosphate operations on the Island were subsequently received during March 1988. Given the need to move quickly to finalise assessment of proposals, and following the cyclonic storm on 27 March 1988 which damaged some mining infrastructure, Departmental Officers telephoned all proponents on 5 April 1988 advising them that the Department would recommend to the Minister that all proposals, including any variations necessitated by the storm damage, should be submitted by the end of April 1988 and that they should work on that basis. Throughout this process, several of the proponents had urged Mr Punch to have the assessment of proposals undertaken by an independent party. In giving effect to that concern and recognising the need for the process to be consistent with Commonwealth assets disposal policy, Mr Punch, on 12 May 1988, announced that the assessment of proposals would be undertaken by the Official Liquidator of the Phosphate Mining Corporation of Christmas Island. The final date of 31 May 1988 for submissions to be received was set by the Liquidator through advertisements in national newspapers. This date was subsequently extended by the Liquidator to 10 June 1988. The Liquidator had written on 25 May 1988 to those groups who had previously provided submissions to the Minister concerning future mining, informing them of his assessment and that it was not necessary for them to submit a fresh proposal. The issue of fresh proposals was, of course, a matter for the individual judgement of proponents, and several submitted amended proposals or additional information. (Question No. 449) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1988: (1) Are recipients of Invalid Pension, once assessed as eligible to receive an Invalid Pension, reassessed after they have been in receipt of the Invalid Pension for any length of time; if so, how frequently are reviews conducted, and what form does the reassessment take; if not, why not. (2) Where a recipient of a Social Security Pension or Benefit appeals against a decision of the Department to the Administrative Appeal Tribunal and the Tribunal finds the recipient's case to be without merit, is the recipient required to pay any costs associated with the appeals; if so, what costs is the recipient required to pay; if not, why not. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) All pensioners, excepting those who are permanently blind, are subject to a periodical review by mail of their circumstances to ensure that their eligibility is continuing and that the correct rate of pension is being paid. The period between reviews can vary between one to three years depending on individual circumstances. Invalid pensioners may also be subject to the following types of reviews. (a) A sample of invalid pensioners is interviewed in person 12 months after grant of pension. The interview is usually conducted in the pensioner's home and is part of a full entitlement review of matters which may affect pension eligibility such as financial circumstances. This review does not include an assessment of medical eligibility. (b) Review of medical eligibility are conducted where it is considered that the pensioner's condition may improve or where other information comes to hand indicating that a medical review is warranted, such as the pensioner commencing work. The medical review consists of assessment of a report from the pensioner's treating medical practitioner and, if necessary, an examination by a Commonwealth Medical Officer. A further medical review may be scheduled if it appears that future improvement in the pensioner's condition is likely. The scheduling of these reviews depends on the individual circumstances of each pensioner. If their condition is deteriorating or is otherwise unlikely to improve, a medical review is not conducted. (2) When the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established it was intended to provide a cheap and accessible forum as an alternative to litigation in the courts. Accordingly, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 does not empower the Tribunal to award costs to either party in the Social Security jurisdiction whatever the result of the application for review. If appellants do not appear in person, they are faced with the payment of their own legal costs (unless provided under the legal aid system which would not fund a case without merit). The tribunal has very rarely described an appeal to be ``without merit''. (Question No. 427) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) What individual obligations under the defence component of the offsets program have been incurred by overseas participants since 30 June 1980. (2) For each obligation incurred, has the obligation been discharged; if so, by what means. Senator Richardson —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Commonwealth considers that details of individual obligations incurred by companies to be Commercial-in-Confidence and has undertaken not to disclose such details. This consideration was fully supported by a recommendation made in 1984 by the Inglis Committee of Review on Offsets. Therefore, the information at the level of detail requested by Senator Lewis cannot be made public knowledge. (2) In order to respond to Senator Lewis, without compromising the Commonwealth's undertaking the following information is provided on the defence component of the offsets program since 30 June 1980: - thirty individual obligations have been fully discharged by twenty-five companies representing $100 million worth of offsets. The total obligation placed on the companies was $70 million. A list of companies involved is provided in the attached Table 1. - some fifty-five individual obligations representing $1,047 million have yet to be fully acquitted by forty-five companies with varying timescales up to the year 1995. To date $313 million worth of offsets has been placed with Australian industry against this figure. The means of discharging obligations met the criteria for acceptable offsets as indicated in the booklet `Australian Offsets Program-Guidelines for Participants'. A list of Australian companies which have benefited from the application of offsets and the offset activities undertaken is provided in the attached Table 2. TABLE 1-COMPANIES WHICH HAVE COMPLETED OBLIGATIONS AGAINST DEFENCE OFFSETS SINCE JUNE 1980 Company Country Advanced Development Engineering Centre USA AEG Telefunken FRG Andrew Corporation (Note: subcontractor to Andrew Antennas, Australia) USA Bofors AB Sweden E-Systems Incorporated USA Euromissile France FMS Corporation USA Honeywell Corporation USA Hughes Aircraft Corporation USA International Lasers Systems USA J. I. Case Company (Note: Prime Contractor was J. I. Case, Australia) USA Krupp Atlas Electronik FRG Mack Incorporated (Note: Prime contractor was Mack Trucks, Australia) USA Magnavox Overseas USA Marconi Company UK Matra France McDonnell Douglas Corp USA RCA Corporation USA Schlumberger Electronics UK Singer Company UK Texas Instruments Incorporated USA Toshiba Machine Company (Note: Prime contractor Japan Machines, Australia) Japan Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation USA Westinghouse Corporation USA TABLE 2-AUSTRALIAN BENEFICIARIES OF OFFSETS Company Activity Aero Plastics Pty Ltd - provision of equipment Aerospace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd - provision of equipment - purchase of products Alcatel STC - research and development Amalgamated Wireless (A'asia) Ltd - research and development - training - provision of equipment - purchase of products - technology transfer Andrew Corporation - part production of assembly - research and development Ansett Technologies - research and development - part production or assembly - purchase of equipment British Aerospace Aust. Ltd - research and development - technology transfer - part production or assembly Celsimator (SA) Pty Ltd - overseas marketing Centre Industries - part production or assembly Centurion Transport Engineering - provision of equipment Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation - research and development Component Resources Pty Ltd - technology transfer Computer Sciences of Australia Pty Ltd - research and development - technology transfer Dunlop Aerospace Australia - provision of equipment EZ Industries Ltd - purchase of products Fairey Australasia Pty Ltd - technology transfer - part production or assembly GEC Australia Ltd - part production or assembly Hawker de Havilland Ltd - part production or assembly - provision of equipment - technology transfer Hewlett Packard Australia Ltd - provision of equipment Integraph Corporation Pty Ltd - administration - training - research and development Interscan Australia Pty Ltd - provision of equipment Jacobs Radio Pty Ltd - research and development Jaguar Rover Aust. Ltd - provision of equipment LSE Technology Pty Ltd - part production or assembly Mack Trucks Australia Pty Ltd - part production or assembly - research and development McMillan Fabrications - part production or assembly Mercedes-Benz (Aust.) Pty Ltd - research and development - part production or assembly Mitec Ltd - research and development Moxham Industrial Pty Ltd - purchase of products NEC Australia Pty Ltd - provision of equipment - training Normalair-Garrett Australia - provision of equipment Ordnance Factory Maribyrnong - purchase of products Philips Defence Systems Pty Ltd - part production or assembly Plessey Australia - part production or assembly - research and development Plessey Pacific Defence Systems Pty Ltd - research and development - technology transfer Qantas Airways Ltd - technology transfer - administration expenses Racal Electronics Pty Ltd - research and development - technology transfer Rex Aviation Ltd - part production or assembly Rockwell Electronics (A'asia) Pty Ltd - part production or assembly - technology transfer - purchase of products - provision of equipment Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology - technology transfer SCEL Pty Ltd - part production or assembly The ANI Corporation Ltd - provision of equipment - part production and assembly Thorn-EMI Electronics - part production or assembly - technology transfer - research and development Tubemakers of Australia Ltd - provision of equipment - part production or assembly - research and development Wedge Industries Pty Ltd - provision of equipment Westinghouse Electric A'asia Ltd - part production or assembly - technology transfer (Question No. 442) Senator Crichton-Browne asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 August 1988: (1) What cities and towns has the Constitutional Commission or any of its sub-committees visited for the purpose of taking public submissions since the Commission was established. (2) What amount of time was spent by each body in each of the towns and cities mentioned in part (1). (3) How many people appeared before the bodies on each of the occasions mentioned in part (1). (4) How many written submissions had the Commission or its sub-committees received from people in towns and cities mentioned in part (1) in advance of the Commission or its sub-committees making the visits mentioned in part (1). (5) What has been the cost of the visits mentioned in part (1). Senator Tate —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) to (5) The Constitutional Commission has provided the following information: The Constitutional Commission and its five Advisory Committees received submissions at meetings, most of them public, on 92 days in 27 cities and towns in all States and mainland Territories and on Norfolk Island. The full cost of visiting a city in which a public hearing was held is given in the tables below. On numerous occasions, however, the Commission's Advisory Committees also undertook other tasks and engagements while in the city, e.g. conducting or participating in seminars, and holding meetings which were not public hearings. In the tables the costs of conducting those public hearings include all transport costs, sitting fees, travelling allowance, salary costs of staff while travelling and attending the public hearings, and venue hire. Advertising costs are not included in the calculations. Approximately $97,000 of expenditure is attributable to advertising public hearings. It is not possible to be more precise because most of the Commission's advertising was multi-purpose. In computing the costs shown in the tables below, it has been necessary notionally to subdivide various lump sum figures. At all times the Commission tried to organise its public hearing programs in such a way that airfares were minimised, by covering a number of public hearings on a single journey. In those cases the total airfare for the journey has been notionally subdivided between the various venues covered by the journey. For ease of presentation the information sought is set out in tabular form. The caveat should be added that the approach of each of the Advisory Committees was different, and that this difference in approach was reflected in the numbers and format of the public meetings held by each Committee. The different approaches were dictated very much by the different subject matters which the five Advisory Committees were reviewing. Statistics on how many written submissions the Commission or its Advisory Committees had received from people in the various towns and cities visited, in advance of the Commission or a Committee conducting public hearings, are not readily available. The Constitutional Commission and its Committees received over 4,000 written and oral submissions. The first submission was received in February 1986. One hundred had been received by early June 1986; 300 by late September 1986; 500 by mid November 1986; 800 by early January 1987; 1000 by late February 1987 and 2000 by the end of April 1987. The public hearings commenced early in July 1986 and concluded in mid March 1987. Most of the hearings were held between August and December 1986. Records of the people attending the public hearings were not collected, or thought appropriate to be collected. The attendance figures which follow are therefore approximate only and are based on the recollections of those who attended the respective hearings. The total attendance at the public hearings, including the people who made the 677 oral submissions received at them, was approximately two and a half thousand. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION HEARINGS City/Town Number of days of public hearings Number of people who attended and made submissions Number of people who attended but made no submissions Imputed cost $ Inverell 1 12 40 1756 Ballarat 1 17 40 1022 AUSTRALIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARINGS City/Town Number of days of public hearings Number of people who attended and made submissions Number of people who attended but made no submissions Imputed cost $ Sydney 2 14 8 4,074 Melbourne 2 13 15 3,658 Brisbane 2 15 25 6,773 Adelaide 2 11 15 6,312 Perth 2 8 12 7,676 Canberra 3 11 12 8,790 Darwin 1 3 5 4,189 Hobart 2 7 6 3,651 DISTRIBUTION OF POWERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARINGS City/Town Number of days of public hearings Number of people who attended and made submissions Number of people who attended but made no submissions Imputed cost $ Melbourne 3 10 25 4326 Hobart 1 6 3 3022 Adelaide 1 14 45 2581 Perth 1 10 20 4025 Norfolk Island 1.5 11 40 5273 Brisbane 1 11 15 3971 Darwin 1 3 3 6778 Canberra 1 20 5 2103 Sydney 1 15 25 2859 EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARINGS City/Town Number of days of public hearings Number of people who attended and made submissions Number of people who attended but made no submissions Imputed cost $ Sydney 3 10 50 3303 Canberra 2 8 6-10 3804 Melbourne 2 9 30-35 4999 Adelaide 1 1 10 2002 Hobart 1 4 4 3343 Brisbane 2 6 6-8 4122 Darwin 1 4 5 4672 Perth 2 7 15-20 8745 INDIVIDUAL AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARINGS City/Town Number of days of public hearings Number of people who attended and made submissions Number of people who attended but made no submissions Imputed cost $ Newcastle 1 13 40 1443 Tamworth 1 10 20 1974 Melbourne 1 22 80 2739 Bendigo 1 14 10 2034 Adelaide 1 16 40 3233 Sydney-City 1 26 220 1261 Hobart 1 7 35 1924 Launceston 1 9 20 1951 Alice Springs 1 7 15 4434 Darwin 1 10 40 6102 Perth 1 28 80 8160 Canberra 1 23 40 2547 Albury 1 18 70 2214 Brisbane 1 27 80 2960 Rockhampton 1 10 25 3265 Townsville 1 11 40 2838 Cairns 1 14 75 2569 Sydney-Fairfield 1 14 50 5900 TRADE AND NATIONAL ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARINGS City/Town Number of days of public hearings Number of people who attended and made submissions Number of people who attended but made no submissions Imputed cost $ Sydney 3 24 9 6575 Armidale 1 4 9 966 Albury 1 5 15 1432 Melbourne 3 18 20 4554 Mildura 1 8 3 2167 Morwell 1 6 20 1881 Brisbane 2 12 20 2777 Toowoomba 1 1 9 1911 Townsville 1 2 4 2518 Cairns 1 4 15 1287 Adelaide 2 8 75 2119 Mount Gambier 1 3 7 1368 Port Augusta 1 2 6 1784 Hobart 2 9 7 2383 Launceston 1 1 1 1717 Burnie 1 2 9 1661 Perth 2 12 16 5737 Kalgoorlie 1 2 4 3190 Port Hedland 1 1 - 3306 Darwin 2 9 9 4301 Alice Springs 1 4 3 1564 Canberra 3 10 25 8942 (Question No. 462) Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 24 August 1988: (1) Will the Minister provide State by State figures for average weekly male and female earnings to cover the financial year 1986-87. (2) If there are considerable disparities between the States, could the Minister outline what action is being taken or is contemplated to redress imbalances. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The table below provides data on the dollar level of average weekly earnings (AWE) for males and females in each of the six States in 1985-86 and 1986-87 and also the rate of growth of those earnings. TABLE: AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS BY SEX AND STATE MALES ($) 1985-86 1986-87 Annual Percentage Change FEMALES ($) 1985-86 1986-87 Annual Percentage Change NSW 426.40 452.50 6.1 278.70 296.80 6.5 Vic. 419.40 443.80 5.8 287.60 303.80 5.6 Qld 387.40 423.50 9.3 248.00 268.10 8.1 SA 389.00 411.80 5.9 252.70 268.90 6.4 WA 428.80 470.60 9.7 245.80 269.30 9.6 Tas 408.20 434.50 6.4 252.90 263.70 4.3 (2) There are considerable disparities between States in both the level and growth of AWE. Two major reasons for differences in earnings across the States are differences in the industrial and occupational mix. A State with a higher proportion of relatively lower paid industries or occupations will have, on average, a lower level of AWE. Differences in the level and rate of growth of AWE between States may also arise if significant differences in the proportions of part-time, junior, or temporary workers exist. These differences in industrial and labour force composition between States represent valid reasons for any perceived `imbalances'. Accordingly, such differences are not directly addressed by Commonwealth Government policy. Other factors accounting for earnings differences between States include differences in the incidence of overtime worked and overaward payments reflecting varying labour market conditions. It should be noted that since the beginning of the current centralised wage-fixing system in 1983, the State industrial tribunals and courts have followed closely the principles and decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Indeed, for equity reasons, the Government has supported a consistent approach across Federal and State jurisdictions. Thus all Australian wage earners regardless of their State of residence have had increases in their award rates of pay determined under an essentially common set of wage fixing guidelines. (Question No. 491) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: For the financial years 1986-87 and 1987-88, what were the total monies paid out by your department and authorities within your portfolio in the form of grants or ex-gratia payments to consultants, corporations, or other non-employees of the Commonwealth. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: 1986-87...$821,536 1987-88...$909,373 These amounts include, in 1986-87, $89,386 for Act of Grace payments under section 34a (i) of the Audit Act and $729,150 for payments to the Social Welfare Research Centre at the University of New South Wales and, in 1987-88, $87,873 and $782,500 respectively for the same purposes. (Question No. 507) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many employees under the Public Service Act were encouraged to retire during the months of May and June 1988. (2) How many accepted the proffered packages. (3) How many of those were retired as a result of job abolition. (4) What was the mean age of those officers accepting packages. (5) What was the average cost of each package. Senator Button —The Minister for Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) During the months of May and June 1988 one employee under the Public Service Act was offered retirement. (2) The officer concerned accepted the proffered package. (3) Retirement was not the result of job abolition. (4) The officer was aged 47 years. (5) The cost of the package was $56,092. This figure does not include recreation and long service payments in lieu, nor superannuation benefits. (Question No. 571) Senator Vallentine asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: What is the total amount of income subsidies, including family allowance supplements or other supplementary income benefits, that have been provided by the Federal Government to Bunnings Co. Ltd. mill workers in Western Australia for: (a) 1984; (b) 1985; (c) 1986; (d) 1987; and (e) 1988. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (a) to (e) The Department of Social Security does not have a list of Bunnings Co. Ltd. mill workers and is unable to provide the information sought.